The law needs clear-cut measurements and clear distinctions between proper behavior and illegal behavior - otherwise it degenerates into arbitrary enforcement. Although I would like to see no dangerous drivers on the road, there needs to a clear message to citizens on what they are supposed to do to be safe on the road (don't drink and drive). It's more important for a law to be practical than for it to be optimal in some engineering sense but not practical.
You don't have to care about the Ganges and Nile, or anyone else in the world. But some day Egypt will probably acquire nukes, and India has nukes, so you should do your best so that they care about you.
As a society, we should control the actions of sociopaths. Use force to lock em up or whatever. Even with morality out of the question, it's a practically good idea.
It's about time we start taxing pollution. And for those who say this will drive companies overseas, we also should put tariffs on imports, unless they can be shown to be produced in a green manner.
Because their only source of legitimacy comes from the partition plan. The Arabs rejected it because the UN was heavily influenced by British and American Zionists and it never was a fair plan to begin with. But, you seem to be arguing that since the Arabs rejected the plan, Israel can just take all of Palestine. Already, Israel's area is far larger than the original plan, and Israel is dominating and blockading all of the remaining territory, which is definitely not in line with any sort of partition plan.
In theory, you can pick out an aggressor and a defender by who started the conflict, but the conflict goes so far back it's meaningless to use this as a measure of justness. It goes back at least to the Zionist Commission following WW1. Pretty much everyone from the start of the conflict is dead.
Hamas is firing dumb rockets in a general direction. They lack the capability to target military targets or civilians. They prefer to hit military targets, but the chance is much higher for hitting a civilian target or nothing at all. This is irresponsible and ineffective, but the rockets are simple enough to be built in a workshop by a few people.
I think these GOP voters don't want mail. Their paradise is living in some shack in the middle of nowhere with no government to annoy them with pesky mail notices.
You don't get it. It's not that they can't easily send letters out to other entities. Nobody cares. It's that other entities (eg, government) can't easily send letters to them. The court doesn't want to have to pay FedEx $90 to send a summons letter to Joe, Unnamed Street, Nowhere, WI.
Pensions sort of make sense when companies can be counted on to survive longer than employees. I wouldn't bet on any (specific) company to outlive me, except perhaps a few defense contractors.
I don't know what the current legal state is, but patents should be like trademarks: if you don't assert the patent for a number of years, then it should be invalidated, to prevent patent owners from pulling out these surprise patents after allowing the technology to gain market share unimpeded.
I'm not too worried about online. It seems to me that this technology would be far more useful for securing face-to-face transactions. Every time you hand your card over to a cashier or a waiter, you give them nearly unrestricted access to your account. If you just gave them a one-time password, that would be a huge increase in security.
What the hell? You are consigned to the fact that the military does some fucked up shit and you would think we're better off if we just don't hear about it. Proud to be an American.
Slashdot Mirror
On the other hand, I do think tests for driver's licenses need to be made greatly more difficult. But, that will never happen in a democracy.
The law needs clear-cut measurements and clear distinctions between proper behavior and illegal behavior - otherwise it degenerates into arbitrary enforcement. Although I would like to see no dangerous drivers on the road, there needs to a clear message to citizens on what they are supposed to do to be safe on the road (don't drink and drive). It's more important for a law to be practical than for it to be optimal in some engineering sense but not practical.
We've already told the Republicans. The report bounced off of their thick skulls.
You don't have to care about the Ganges and Nile, or anyone else in the world. But some day Egypt will probably acquire nukes, and India has nukes, so you should do your best so that they care about you.
As a society, we should control the actions of sociopaths. Use force to lock em up or whatever. Even with morality out of the question, it's a practically good idea.
It's about time we start taxing pollution. And for those who say this will drive companies overseas, we also should put tariffs on imports, unless they can be shown to be produced in a green manner.
I was going by a translation of a fighter's words who was interviewed by Al Jazeera. Obviously, he can't speak for every fighter.
Because their only source of legitimacy comes from the partition plan. The Arabs rejected it because the UN was heavily influenced by British and American Zionists and it never was a fair plan to begin with. But, you seem to be arguing that since the Arabs rejected the plan, Israel can just take all of Palestine. Already, Israel's area is far larger than the original plan, and Israel is dominating and blockading all of the remaining territory, which is definitely not in line with any sort of partition plan.
In theory, you can pick out an aggressor and a defender by who started the conflict, but the conflict goes so far back it's meaningless to use this as a measure of justness. It goes back at least to the Zionist Commission following WW1. Pretty much everyone from the start of the conflict is dead.
Hamas is firing dumb rockets in a general direction. They lack the capability to target military targets or civilians. They prefer to hit military targets, but the chance is much higher for hitting a civilian target or nothing at all. This is irresponsible and ineffective, but the rockets are simple enough to be built in a workshop by a few people.
That's what happens when you are a multinational corporation. The solution is probably to spawn semi-autonomous business units in each country.
I think these GOP voters don't want mail. Their paradise is living in some shack in the middle of nowhere with no government to annoy them with pesky mail notices.
You don't get it. It's not that they can't easily send letters out to other entities. Nobody cares. It's that other entities (eg, government) can't easily send letters to them. The court doesn't want to have to pay FedEx $90 to send a summons letter to Joe, Unnamed Street, Nowhere, WI.
Pensions sort of make sense when companies can be counted on to survive longer than employees. I wouldn't bet on any (specific) company to outlive me, except perhaps a few defense contractors.
Yes, they lend it, or invest it. That's how they get richer.
I don't know what the current legal state is, but patents should be like trademarks: if you don't assert the patent for a number of years, then it should be invalidated, to prevent patent owners from pulling out these surprise patents after allowing the technology to gain market share unimpeded.
observing wildlife?
Small things still scatter light even if they are too small to resolve. It's why the sky is blue.
because starvation is a much scarier whip than one made with leather
Actually happened, and still happening. Some more recent examples. http://wsws.org/articles/2012/may2012/phil-m10.shtml
I'm not too worried about online. It seems to me that this technology would be far more useful for securing face-to-face transactions. Every time you hand your card over to a cashier or a waiter, you give them nearly unrestricted access to your account. If you just gave them a one-time password, that would be a huge increase in security.
Correct, except that the avenues that you listed will accomplish nothing.
What the hell? You are consigned to the fact that the military does some fucked up shit and you would think we're better off if we just don't hear about it. Proud to be an American.
Scott Adams is wrong then. The Fourth Amendment doesn't use the word "privacy", but it expounds on it.
Historically, true. But... hyperinflation.