What you hear and what is so are probably a couple orders of magnitude away from each other, that's the nature of words versus actions, but even if these people exist it doesn't change the meaning of my statement in context, that everyone believes at least some of the "truly needy" aren't.
How does subsidizing corn production for the making of ethanol (from corn) further anybody? Ethanol from corn isn't a viable technology and spending money to roll out a technology that is already a failure does nothing to further the cause of alternate energy in general.
By logic we should be dumping government money into a massive production of solar cars, hydrogen cells, and space elevators. Who cares if the technology isn't useful as it stands? Why wait until something is ready for prime time when we can just throw money into a pit?
Research is just that, and it doesn't require gas stations offering E85 to figure out better ways to make Ethanol. It doesn't need to be perfect, but it does need to at least be a step in the right direction.
There's a difference between nurturing a technology and ramming it down people's throats.
Computers didn't enter the home until costs had dropped and power was great enough for them to be marketable. Ethanol isn't at this point, and until it is I shouldn't shouldn't have to pay people to produce an inferior product that has been reaking havoc on food markets beyond what is needed in an R&D capacity.
as well as pissing off a lot less of the world, reducing our need for a large military budget in the first place.
How does that affect the other nations that rely on or benefit from our military for their protection? I understand that in most cases it's a relationship of convenience and that they'd figure out something on their own if they had to, but the troops manning the 38th Parallel aren't doing much for U.S. security.
Who determines who the "truly needy" are?
That's always been the root of the argument. There are very few people who honestly support a complete tooth and claw society where any who fall behind for any reason are left to die, just as there are very few people who support a state that hands everything to anyone regardless of their social context.
In the middle are all the shades of gray, and each and everyone one of those shades has social programs they'd cut as unnecessary, so it's a little pretentious to argue that there aren't some pork barreled social programs out there.
No. Golden is still easy to get to, as are the ski resorts, just take I70. Still too close to "downtown" take I76. The real problem with that section of the loop not existing is what a pain it to get from Lakewood/Golden to Boulder, Longemont, Louisville, Westminster etc.
Taking I70 East to I25 then coming back on 36 (essentially making a giant ">" literally half way across Denver) should never be the fastest option, but it is because the only other way to get between 70 and 35 is a collection of surface streets.
The one thing I do appreciate about Chicago's tolls, coming from Wisconsin, is that if you can read a road map there's not a single one of them you'll ever have to pay because they all run 5ft away from a toll-free highway.
In rush hour traffic you don't even lose much time.
I70 is fine, I drive on it all the time...
270 on the other hand looks like it got hit by an artillery barrage with the basketball size potholes in every single lane.
Unless those "pedestrians" become a major traffic hazard. I know a couple people who got some rather nasty tickets for things like running red lights because they took their assumption that the police don't care about bicycles to practice and so did hundreds of other college students in the area.
Just because people are riding it doesn't mean that it's effective or efficient.
Ridership spiked because people made the choice to trade their time for money with gas prices being so high. Yes, I could quintuple the time it takes me to get to work and do it slightly cheaper, that doesn't mean mass transit is a success.
You are correct, I'm not a master on the functioning of stage mics. I just know that the opera people are up in arms about the use of amplification because a true singer should be able to project.
If opera singers use Accoustic Enhancement to compensate for the the less than perfect acoustics of venues that are designed specifically for stage performance, what's unfair about the use of electronic amplification by people who are potentially playing in bars and stadiums with hundreds to tens of thousands shouting back at them rather than sitting quietly.
How about this. When the sky turns dark and it looks like the end of the world as we know it, turn on your damn radio.
Maybe this kind of perception is a Midwestern thing, I don't know, but we know the weather is shitty before we turn on the TV or radio to find out just how shitty.
Pardon my poor wording. The point I was trying to get across is that there are a lot of countries that look better than they should because they discount babies born under a certain weight, outside of certain time frames, or under similar conditions that they choose not to count against their infant mortality rate. Other countries look much worse, as is the case with the U.S., because they count deaths across the board, even if their was little to nothing that could have changed the outcome. Just a note on how seemingly straight forward statistics are dangerous to compare.
Of course some countries simply aren't the best place to have a baby.
You'd think "infant mortality rate" would be pretty straight forward too, but if you look it seems like every single country has different standards, and the laxer they are the lower the mortality rate is, imagine that.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a nice bit in there about refusing to stop, and refusing to give up the phone. Both things a teacher of old could have enforced.
So tell her to go to detention.
"No."
"Ok, then you're suspended, leave school."
"No."
If someone disregards the authority of a teacher, what makes you think they'll suddenly start respecting it when the punishment is upped?
What you hear and what is so are probably a couple orders of magnitude away from each other, that's the nature of words versus actions, but even if these people exist it doesn't change the meaning of my statement in context, that everyone believes at least some of the "truly needy" aren't.
How does subsidizing corn production for the making of ethanol (from corn) further anybody? Ethanol from corn isn't a viable technology and spending money to roll out a technology that is already a failure does nothing to further the cause of alternate energy in general.
By logic we should be dumping government money into a massive production of solar cars, hydrogen cells, and space elevators. Who cares if the technology isn't useful as it stands? Why wait until something is ready for prime time when we can just throw money into a pit?
Research is just that, and it doesn't require gas stations offering E85 to figure out better ways to make Ethanol. It doesn't need to be perfect, but it does need to at least be a step in the right direction.
There's a difference between nurturing a technology and ramming it down people's throats.
Computers didn't enter the home until costs had dropped and power was great enough for them to be marketable. Ethanol isn't at this point, and until it is I shouldn't shouldn't have to pay people to produce an inferior product that has been reaking havoc on food markets beyond what is needed in an R&D capacity.
I think Google maps fucked me. :(
as well as pissing off a lot less of the world, reducing our need for a large military budget in the first place.
How does that affect the other nations that rely on or benefit from our military for their protection? I understand that in most cases it's a relationship of convenience and that they'd figure out something on their own if they had to, but the troops manning the 38th Parallel aren't doing much for U.S. security.
Who determines who the "truly needy" are? That's always been the root of the argument. There are very few people who honestly support a complete tooth and claw society where any who fall behind for any reason are left to die, just as there are very few people who support a state that hands everything to anyone regardless of their social context.
In the middle are all the shades of gray, and each and everyone one of those shades has social programs they'd cut as unnecessary, so it's a little pretentious to argue that there aren't some pork barreled social programs out there.
No. Golden is still easy to get to, as are the ski resorts, just take I70. Still too close to "downtown" take I76. The real problem with that section of the loop not existing is what a pain it to get from Lakewood/Golden to Boulder, Longemont, Louisville, Westminster etc.
Taking I70 East to I25 then coming back on 36 (essentially making a giant ">" literally half way across Denver) should never be the fastest option, but it is because the only other way to get between 70 and 35 is a collection of surface streets.
The SW loop is also free.
In 6 months I've never paid a single toll, and frankly I don't know where people are going that they are.
Want an even better question, why isn't it a toll road from I25 to I70/6th West.
I'm certainly not complaining but it does seem odd that that's the only part of the loop that isn't tolled.
The one thing I do appreciate about Chicago's tolls, coming from Wisconsin, is that if you can read a road map there's not a single one of them you'll ever have to pay because they all run 5ft away from a toll-free highway.
In rush hour traffic you don't even lose much time.
I70 is fine, I drive on it all the time... 270 on the other hand looks like it got hit by an artillery barrage with the basketball size potholes in every single lane.
I believe he's using EZPass in the non-branded fashion like "Kleenex" or "Xerox".
You would take I70 east to I35 out of KC, but yeah the tolls are on I70.
There's a better reason to take I80 though, like it being much shorter and faster.
Unless those "pedestrians" become a major traffic hazard. I know a couple people who got some rather nasty tickets for things like running red lights because they took their assumption that the police don't care about bicycles to practice and so did hundreds of other college students in the area.
Just because people are riding it doesn't mean that it's effective or efficient.
Ridership spiked because people made the choice to trade their time for money with gas prices being so high. Yes, I could quintuple the time it takes me to get to work and do it slightly cheaper, that doesn't mean mass transit is a success.
So I'm not the only one who read that as Budweiser!
My favorite part is that he explained in, literally, bullet points, what was going on with the math.
And you not only missed it, but got modded up for inability to read.
You are correct, I'm not a master on the functioning of stage mics. I just know that the opera people are up in arms about the use of amplification because a true singer should be able to project.
If opera singers use Accoustic Enhancement to compensate for the the less than perfect acoustics of venues that are designed specifically for stage performance, what's unfair about the use of electronic amplification by people who are potentially playing in bars and stadiums with hundreds to tens of thousands shouting back at them rather than sitting quietly.
How about this. When the sky turns dark and it looks like the end of the world as we know it, turn on your damn radio.
Maybe this kind of perception is a Midwestern thing, I don't know, but we know the weather is shitty before we turn on the TV or radio to find out just how shitty.
Pardon my poor wording. The point I was trying to get across is that there are a lot of countries that look better than they should because they discount babies born under a certain weight, outside of certain time frames, or under similar conditions that they choose not to count against their infant mortality rate. Other countries look much worse, as is the case with the U.S., because they count deaths across the board, even if their was little to nothing that could have changed the outcome. Just a note on how seemingly straight forward statistics are dangerous to compare.
Of course some countries simply aren't the best place to have a baby.
You'd think "infant mortality rate" would be pretty straight forward too, but if you look it seems like every single country has different standards, and the laxer they are the lower the mortality rate is, imagine that.
Thankfully they don't seem to have figured out how to use the bridge into Wisconsin yet. Let's pray they never do.