I use a cell phone holder that mounts to the air vent on the dashboard - it's a generic holder that expands far enough side-to-side to accommodate the iPhone, and has a gap at the bottom that's wide enough for the phone charger to be plugged in so I don't waste battery life while using the GPS functions. It's mounted upright (not sideways) but that still works and is visible enough from my driver's seat.
That's a specious sophistry. Men and women both can marry someone of the opposite gender, but not someone of the same gender. The only way you can get a right men have that women don't out of that is to *define* the right itself in terms of a specific gender.
There was a similar argument for laws against interracial marriage as well - since no one was allowed to marry outside their race, it was argued, it was not discriminating against any one race. Everyone still had an equal right to marry someone, and all were equally limited to their own race. However, the California Supreme Court rejected this argument in the 1948 Perez v. Sharp decision, which is what the court used as precedent in the recent ruling legalizing same-sex marriage. It didn't matter that the law was not singling out any one race to discriminate against; simply having race as a limiting factor was considered an unreasonable restriction on the right to marry.
The Perez case described the "right to marry" as follows:
the essence of the right to marry is freedom to join in marriage with the person of one's choice
Just as a person cannot help that the one person they choose to marry is of a different race, some cannot help the fact that the one person they choose to marry is of the same gender. Limiting one's available choice for marriage based on gender should be considered, according to CA's equal protection statutes, just as discriminatory as limiting it based on race.
I think you missed the part where the wallet full of cash was part of the scam. The money in the "lost" wallet is provided by the con men to lure in the mark... giving the guy "his share" would mean the con men lose money, which is why they're prepared with a decoy envelope.
Would it be too difficult to list the patent titles in the study description, next to the patent numbers and links? The summaries don't give much info about what patents are in question, but at least listing the titles might help. (For example, in the KEYBOARD - RIMM study, it would help to know that the patent disputes include "Hand-held electronic device with a keyboard optimized for use with the thumbs", "Hand-held e-mail device", "Hand-held electronic device with auxiliary input device", etc.)
Find a friend with kids and TV. Offer to bring the pizza or other food/beverage for an election night party. The kids learn a bit about the electoral process before going off to their slumber party, the adults stay up to see the results. Bonus points if the parents let you leave the kids overnight & pick them up in the morning.
If you don't have any such friends whose kids tolerate yours, and vice versa, then you really need to buy that TV.:-P
You used to be able to see the video - and download the song! - from dontdownloadthissong.com. Sadly, it looks like that site's been retired and I don't know if you can still get the MP3 from Weird Al's site. But, he had no problems giving it away for free as a way of advertising his last album.
its odd that they are (from what ive found) all from the late 1800's/early 1900's...
Might it have something to do with the decline in home coal use and/or far more automation of coal transport in the mines? Meaning fewer people who see an odd piece & have opportunity to break it open?
Just wondering if that could be part of the explanation...
they could get off their fat arses and visit the companies where these people work, introduce themselves, and offer their services... but that's actual WORK!
Visit my office and interrupt me (probably during my lunch hour) to sell me travel services... And I should find this less annoying than spam email??
You're assuming that the schoolchildren selected a candidate after considering each one, deciding based on some factors that they can understand - whether that be a simplified description of their policies or just which one has better hair.
However, if I remember my childhood accurately, I'd have to say that I and my classmates almost always advocated the candidates for whom our parents were planning to vote. Perhaps that's what lends it some accuracy - the kids are basically stating a preference on behalf of real voters (their parents).
I believe your calculations are wrong. It's understandable, though, since soccer parenting is a fairly unique branch of mathematics.
First off, you're assuming a standard car with 1 adult driver and 4 passengers; instead, you should be using an SUV with a capacity of 6-8, including driver. (Result: 4-5 vehicles)
Next, you have to consider that not all parents will attend every game. The primary reason that soccer moms drive SUVs is that they must occasionally transport several of their child's teammates to a game (or, worse, to practice!) when their turn comes up in the rotation. Therefore, you only need enough SUVs to cover the number of child passengers, and the number of adults will follow. (Result: 2-3 vehicles)
However, you might recall that the other reason that soccer moms drive SUVs is that they often have additional children that have not yet reach sports playing age, and must be transported along with the parent, in a car seat (which, in the case of a standard car, would reduce passenger capacity by at least 20% by rendering the back center seat useless.) Assume that approximately 1 in 3 soccer moms have an additional child to transport, and the child adds to the overall passenger count. (Result: 3-4 vehicles)
Finally, realizing that the overloaded schedule and priorities of child + parent create scheduling conflicts, it is impossible to get optimal performance. At least 1 child per SUV will be late, leaving a seat empty and requiring another parent with car to tranport them. (Result: 6-8 vehicles)
The result is a range of possible values, but your initial calculation of 6 vehicles is optimistic at best.
I would never condemn abortion as murder or as a crime, because the crime for a Christian is to not offer an opportunity to a pregnant woman in need.
Are you also opposed to treating theft as a crime, since the crime for a Christian is to allow any person to live in want?
Not commenting necessarily on the specific issue of abortion, but the Christian values of charity and forgiveness do not provide a solid basis for human law. I want a government that acts as judge, not one that plays Jesus.
I'm in the US. I see police making a significant effort to protect life an property around me on a regular basis.
How much do you suppose they were paid from the federal government? As far as I'm aware, there's no "national police protection plan" that collects from individual taxpayers and then disperses it to local police forces. So why do we have presidential candidates proposing "national health care plans"? If it's the equivalent of law enforcement, then you only need a federal health care system for illnesses caused by crossing state boundaries.
I find it a little unlikely that it specifically hunted them down, unless it was within a few minutes and they hadn't walked too far away. If domestic cats are any indication, the tiger would be willing to take its aggression on anyone, especially if the original instigator was out of sight. It seems more likely that they were the last ones near the cage, and the first ones she came across after escaping the enclosure. However, if a different set of visitors had been closer, she probably would have taken the first available victim.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures by human-animal hybrids, shall not be violated...
Odd. I saw the trailer for it back before they'd figured out what to call it. And I heard about it (as an unnamed movie) from some friends... but it was true word-of-mouth, and not the web-based viral kind. I didn't see TV ads for it until shortly before the release, but I'd been aware of it for (I think) several months.
Well, even the 3 laws wouldn't prevent a robot from lying to another robot, would it?
In fact, one of Asimov's robot stories specifically covered the anomaly of a robot who could lie - and did so to "protect" humans. And since the 3 laws only deal with protecting humans, protecting the robot's self, and following commands, there's nothing that says you couldn't have robot-on-robot violence.
Slashdot Mirror
I use a cell phone holder that mounts to the air vent on the dashboard - it's a generic holder that expands far enough side-to-side to accommodate the iPhone, and has a gap at the bottom that's wide enough for the phone charger to be plugged in so I don't waste battery life while using the GPS functions. It's mounted upright (not sideways) but that still works and is visible enough from my driver's seat.
Yep, I did that using the instructions here: Making your own iPhone ringtones
There was a similar argument for laws against interracial marriage as well - since no one was allowed to marry outside their race, it was argued, it was not discriminating against any one race. Everyone still had an equal right to marry someone, and all were equally limited to their own race. However, the California Supreme Court rejected this argument in the 1948 Perez v. Sharp decision, which is what the court used as precedent in the recent ruling legalizing same-sex marriage. It didn't matter that the law was not singling out any one race to discriminate against; simply having race as a limiting factor was considered an unreasonable restriction on the right to marry.
The Perez case described the "right to marry" as follows:
Just as a person cannot help that the one person they choose to marry is of a different race, some cannot help the fact that the one person they choose to marry is of the same gender. Limiting one's available choice for marriage based on gender should be considered, according to CA's equal protection statutes, just as discriminatory as limiting it based on race.
I think you missed the part where the wallet full of cash was part of the scam. The money in the "lost" wallet is provided by the con men to lure in the mark... giving the guy "his share" would mean the con men lose money, which is why they're prepared with a decoy envelope.
Would it be too difficult to list the patent titles in the study description, next to the patent numbers and links? The summaries don't give much info about what patents are in question, but at least listing the titles might help. (For example, in the KEYBOARD - RIMM study, it would help to know that the patent disputes include "Hand-held electronic device with a keyboard optimized for use with the thumbs", "Hand-held e-mail device", "Hand-held electronic device with auxiliary input device", etc.)
Wait... when does the Electoral College vote? :-P
Find a friend with kids and TV. Offer to bring the pizza or other food/beverage for an election night party. The kids learn a bit about the electoral process before going off to their slumber party, the adults stay up to see the results. Bonus points if the parents let you leave the kids overnight & pick them up in the morning.
:-P
If you don't have any such friends whose kids tolerate yours, and vice versa, then you really need to buy that TV.
You used to be able to see the video - and download the song! - from dontdownloadthissong.com. Sadly, it looks like that site's been retired and I don't know if you can still get the MP3 from Weird Al's site. But, he had no problems giving it away for free as a way of advertising his last album.
Umm, I thought the blurring in Amish Paradise is part of the original video. Al tries to keep everything PG-13.
its odd that they are (from what ive found) all from the late 1800's/early 1900's...
Might it have something to do with the decline in home coal use and/or far more automation of coal transport in the mines? Meaning fewer people who see an odd piece & have opportunity to break it open?
Just wondering if that could be part of the explanation...
Obligatory pedantic correction: it's "never call chicks broads".
(Words to live by!)
they could get off their fat arses and visit the companies where these people work, introduce themselves, and offer their services ... but that's actual WORK!
... And I should find this less annoying than spam email??
Visit my office and interrupt me (probably during my lunch hour) to sell me travel services
You're assuming that the schoolchildren selected a candidate after considering each one, deciding based on some factors that they can understand - whether that be a simplified description of their policies or just which one has better hair.
However, if I remember my childhood accurately, I'd have to say that I and my classmates almost always advocated the candidates for whom our parents were planning to vote. Perhaps that's what lends it some accuracy - the kids are basically stating a preference on behalf of real voters (their parents).
I also find frozen water undrinkable, but for reasons wholly unrelated to bacterial contamination.
Ooh, primitive Imperial Guards!
No just deity would have required the killing of an innocent
...unless it's a crucifixion. Those are still cool.
I believe your calculations are wrong. It's understandable, though, since soccer parenting is a fairly unique branch of mathematics.
First off, you're assuming a standard car with 1 adult driver and 4 passengers; instead, you should be using an SUV with a capacity of 6-8, including driver.
(Result: 4-5 vehicles)
Next, you have to consider that not all parents will attend every game. The primary reason that soccer moms drive SUVs is that they must occasionally transport several of their child's teammates to a game (or, worse, to practice!) when their turn comes up in the rotation. Therefore, you only need enough SUVs to cover the number of child passengers, and the number of adults will follow.
(Result: 2-3 vehicles)
However, you might recall that the other reason that soccer moms drive SUVs is that they often have additional children that have not yet reach sports playing age, and must be transported along with the parent, in a car seat (which, in the case of a standard car, would reduce passenger capacity by at least 20% by rendering the back center seat useless.) Assume that approximately 1 in 3 soccer moms have an additional child to transport, and the child adds to the overall passenger count.
(Result: 3-4 vehicles)
Finally, realizing that the overloaded schedule and priorities of child + parent create scheduling conflicts, it is impossible to get optimal performance. At least 1 child per SUV will be late, leaving a seat empty and requiring another parent with car to tranport them.
(Result: 6-8 vehicles)
The result is a range of possible values, but your initial calculation of 6 vehicles is optimistic at best.
Sounds more like the Swatch watch of phones, to me.
I would never condemn abortion as murder or as a crime, because the crime for a Christian is to not offer an opportunity to a pregnant woman in need.
Are you also opposed to treating theft as a crime, since the crime for a Christian is to allow any person to live in want?
Not commenting necessarily on the specific issue of abortion, but the Christian values of charity and forgiveness do not provide a solid basis for human law. I want a government that acts as judge, not one that plays Jesus.
I'm in the US. I see police making a significant effort to protect life an property around me on a regular basis.
How much do you suppose they were paid from the federal government? As far as I'm aware, there's no "national police protection plan" that collects from individual taxpayers and then disperses it to local police forces. So why do we have presidential candidates proposing "national health care plans"? If it's the equivalent of law enforcement, then you only need a federal health care system for illnesses caused by crossing state boundaries.
I find it a little unlikely that it specifically hunted them down, unless it was within a few minutes and they hadn't walked too far away. If domestic cats are any indication, the tiger would be willing to take its aggression on anyone, especially if the original instigator was out of sight. It seems more likely that they were the last ones near the cage, and the first ones she came across after escaping the enclosure. However, if a different set of visitors had been closer, she probably would have taken the first available victim.
Ah yes, the Fourth Amendment:
...
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures by human-animal hybrids, shall not be violated
Funny how many folks forget that part.
Odd. I saw the trailer for it back before they'd figured out what to call it. And I heard about it (as an unnamed movie) from some friends ... but it was true word-of-mouth, and not the web-based viral kind. I didn't see TV ads for it until shortly before the release, but I'd been aware of it for (I think) several months.
Last time I checked (last night) there isn't much strategic planning or difficult choices to be made in reading a book.
Clearly, you've never had to choose your own adventure.
Well, even the 3 laws wouldn't prevent a robot from lying to another robot, would it?
In fact, one of Asimov's robot stories specifically covered the anomaly of a robot who could lie - and did so to "protect" humans. And since the 3 laws only deal with protecting humans, protecting the robot's self, and following commands, there's nothing that says you couldn't have robot-on-robot violence.