The operator shall maintain target thickness throughout the runs.
More likely, hire a local associate to pay you a visit
But I never gave him my real address, you say. Well how much work is it to have someone wait outside the post office and follow the gentleman carrying the large green package with the red stripe across it.
The reason eugenics is a dirty word is that it is implicitly directed. Individuals making independent fitness decisions about their mates is called natural selection. With the availability of genetic testing we've gone from avoiding mates with cleft pallets and clubbed feet to (possibly) avoiding reproducing with someone with DG5G in their genome. It's the same as it always was, only now with more information.
The real son of a bitch is trying to define government waste. If it were easy, the budget would just sail through congress every year.
Is NASA wasteful? Is it less wasteful to buy homeless people houses or to clean up after them? Is it more wasteful to wage a war on drugs or to deal with the consequences of available drugs? Is the FBI less wasteful when it investigates kidnappings, white collar crime, or terrorism? How do you identify waste in the highway system? What about education? That's worse than advertising, as in "I know half my money works, I just don't know which half." FDA, FCC, EPA, OSHA... where's the waste?
Then you get into the heavy hitters. Is the army wasteful? What can you eliminate? Does outsourcing a la Blackwater/Xe Haliburton, etc. make the army more or less efficient? Is medicare wasteful in spite of providing more service per dollar than any private insurance? Is social security wasteful? How the F do you deal with that? Raising the retirement age seems the most sensible, but what does that do the the millennials just getting out of college?
That's an interesting perspective given that the chart you referenced clearly shows Federal government spending as less than 5% of GDP in 1930, and ~25% of GDP right now.
That's your honest assessment of that chart? In 1930 we didn't have a modern economy. Do you seriously not think that the most striking feature of that chart is that outlays sits more or less at 20% from WW2 to 2009?
You'll also note that revenues and outlays began diverging right around when Reagan became president.
Wisdom teeth are frequently pulled because the *might* cause trouble. The risk of complications is minuscule and the risk that they *might* slightly displace other teeth is fairly significant. Sort of like how sperm *might* cause a problem.
You'll run into a urologist looking to perform a vasectomy for the same reason you'll meet a cosmetic surgeon looking to perform a vanity nose job. You sought them out because you think the procedure will make your life better. Ditto for cosmetic liposuction for the slightly overweight.
Like myopia, at a certain point in one's life, a man might consider fertility a fault - a fault for which there are other, if somewhat less convenient solutions - fortunately a simple surgical procedure exists.
Just as it's silly to recommend medical intervention for every minor ailment, it's silly to refuse elective medical treatment for every minor medical convenience.
And suggesting that there is no substantive difference between a vasectomy an elective leg amputation is either being argumentative or being obtuse... I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
If you have a doctor who can't differentiate between the ethics of a vasectomy and a voluntary amputation, run for the hills.
That said, ff you're young and you don't have kids, asking you to undergo a psych evaluation before performing a vasectomy is probably the most responsible thing the doc can do.
Meh, I'm not sure that this isn't something that can't be included in the results.
How is a letter that says, "you carry a gene that puts you at a 30% greater risk for thyroid cancer than the general public" any worse than having your family doctor tell you, "your cholesterol is 240, this indicates you have an elevated risk of cardio-vascular disease"?
There are laws against using genetic information for hiring/firing decisions and health insurance purposes.
Laws aren't perfect, so it's conceivable and perhaps even probable that a few people will be negatively impacted by insufficiently private genetic testing, but systematic abuse of this kind of information opens you up to law suits that are far more serious than slightly elevated group insurance rates.
There isn't a drug yet discovered that doesn't have side effects. As such, every decision to medicate yourself ought to be preceded by a careful cost-benefit analysis. Whether that's, "I'd rather be irritable than risk blood clots," or "I'd rather hear voices than not be able to experience pleasure," it's not your place to judge.
Media companies are in the business of making money, not exercising arbitrary control (that's what politicians are for.) If intimidation doesn't serve commercial interests, it's useless. If intimidation does serve commercial interests (and I think it might) then they shouldn't expect someone else to do something that makes them money for free.
I think traffic checkpoints are of dubious constitutionality, but at least they're egalitarian infringements.
Obviously, the bulk of of people required to prove their citizenship under the AZ law are going to be those suspected of some sort of wrong doing (probably mostly traffic stops.) That, to me, is not particularly troubling.
What is troubling is that I suspect that at the same DUI checkpoint that you're outraged about they will let all the white people go after blowing, but demand, "papers please" from all the brown people - both drivers and passengers. Of course, they weren't selected solely because of their ethnic background, there were also 4 people in a car on a "known human trafficking route" (never mind that this particular trafficking route would have originated at the bar across the street from the checkpoint). Or some other canned "reasonable and articulable suspicion."
We won't have a good sense of how many legal Hispanics were forced into producing proof of citizenship/residency because the police will never report that number.
They'll hold a little parade every time they deport someone though.
I predict that there will be on outpouring of stories on liberal and immigration issue blogs of people being harassed. I further predict that you will dismiss this as anecdotal, politically biased, and not representative.
Slashdot Mirror
No silly, that's not it.
What he's saying is that he trust the police to only harass bad people, and let all the good people carry on with their day.
In order to make the police's job of harassing bad people easier, we should define as many household items "suspicious" as possible.
The namesake of the FBI building always found it more convenient to blackmail the politicians he worked for.
More likely, hire a local associate to pay you a visit
But I never gave him my real address, you say. Well how much work is it to have someone wait outside the post office and follow the gentleman carrying the large green package with the red stripe across it.
The reason eugenics is a dirty word is that it is implicitly directed. Individuals making independent fitness decisions about their mates is called natural selection. With the availability of genetic testing we've gone from avoiding mates with cleft pallets and clubbed feet to (possibly) avoiding reproducing with someone with DG5G in their genome. It's the same as it always was, only now with more information.
The real son of a bitch is trying to define government waste. If it were easy, the budget would just sail through congress every year.
Is NASA wasteful? Is it less wasteful to buy homeless people houses or to clean up after them? Is it more wasteful to wage a war on drugs or to deal with the consequences of available drugs? Is the FBI less wasteful when it investigates kidnappings, white collar crime, or terrorism? How do you identify waste in the highway system? What about education? That's worse than advertising, as in "I know half my money works, I just don't know which half." FDA, FCC, EPA, OSHA ... where's the waste?
Then you get into the heavy hitters. Is the army wasteful? What can you eliminate? Does outsourcing a la Blackwater/Xe Haliburton, etc. make the army more or less efficient? Is medicare wasteful in spite of providing more service per dollar than any private insurance? Is social security wasteful? How the F do you deal with that? Raising the retirement age seems the most sensible, but what does that do the the millennials just getting out of college?
That's your honest assessment of that chart? In 1930 we didn't have a modern economy. Do you seriously not think that the most striking feature of that chart is that outlays sits more or less at 20% from WW2 to 2009?
You'll also note that revenues and outlays began diverging right around when Reagan became president.
Government doesn't expand in terms of power and revenue because it's getting better, it expands because the economy is expanding.
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Federal%20outlays%20and%20revenues
They'd have to figure out how to grow food first.
Wisdom teeth are frequently pulled because the *might* cause trouble. The risk of complications is minuscule and the risk that they *might* slightly displace other teeth is fairly significant. Sort of like how sperm *might* cause a problem.
You'll run into a urologist looking to perform a vasectomy for the same reason you'll meet a cosmetic surgeon looking to perform a vanity nose job. You sought them out because you think the procedure will make your life better. Ditto for cosmetic liposuction for the slightly overweight.
Like myopia, at a certain point in one's life, a man might consider fertility a fault - a fault for which there are other, if somewhat less convenient solutions - fortunately a simple surgical procedure exists.
Just as it's silly to recommend medical intervention for every minor ailment, it's silly to refuse elective medical treatment for every minor medical convenience.
And suggesting that there is no substantive difference between a vasectomy an elective leg amputation is either being argumentative or being obtuse ... I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
One serves a purpose (contraception).
The other induces a disability.
I know you're just being argumentative, but if you change your mind you can still adopt, but we don't have leg-transplants.
Then there's wisdom teeth, nose jobs, liposuction, lasik etc. etc.
If you have a doctor who can't differentiate between the ethics of a vasectomy and a voluntary amputation, run for the hills.
That said, ff you're young and you don't have kids, asking you to undergo a psych evaluation before performing a vasectomy is probably the most responsible thing the doc can do.
Meh, I'm not sure that this isn't something that can't be included in the results.
How is a letter that says, "you carry a gene that puts you at a 30% greater risk for thyroid cancer than the general public" any worse than having your family doctor tell you, "your cholesterol is 240, this indicates you have an elevated risk of cardio-vascular disease"?
There are laws against using genetic information for hiring/firing decisions and health insurance purposes.
Laws aren't perfect, so it's conceivable and perhaps even probable that a few people will be negatively impacted by insufficiently private genetic testing, but systematic abuse of this kind of information opens you up to law suits that are far more serious than slightly elevated group insurance rates.
At which point you should tell the doctor to go fuck himself and find one who respects his patients.
There isn't a drug yet discovered that doesn't have side effects. As such, every decision to medicate yourself ought to be preceded by a careful cost-benefit analysis. Whether that's, "I'd rather be irritable than risk blood clots," or "I'd rather hear voices than not be able to experience pleasure," it's not your place to judge.
Boring as shit?
Media companies are in the business of making money, not exercising arbitrary control (that's what politicians are for.) If intimidation doesn't serve commercial interests, it's useless. If intimidation does serve commercial interests (and I think it might) then they shouldn't expect someone else to do something that makes them money for free.
I don't know about that, I think there was an episode of Eerie Indiana dedicated to it.
re-reading my post - I believe I'm running the risk of being taken seriously - so let this post serve as a sarcasm tag.
This clearly explains the "fear cage" phenomenon on Ghost Hunters.
They probably didn't. They all some sort of glowing orb moving around. They started swapping stories and their experiences converged.
Sounds like the lead-in to a bad horror movie.
I think traffic checkpoints are of dubious constitutionality, but at least they're egalitarian infringements.
Obviously, the bulk of of people required to prove their citizenship under the AZ law are going to be those suspected of some sort of wrong doing (probably mostly traffic stops.) That, to me, is not particularly troubling.
What is troubling is that I suspect that at the same DUI checkpoint that you're outraged about they will let all the white people go after blowing, but demand, "papers please" from all the brown people - both drivers and passengers. Of course, they weren't selected solely because of their ethnic background, there were also 4 people in a car on a "known human trafficking route" (never mind that this particular trafficking route would have originated at the bar across the street from the checkpoint). Or some other canned "reasonable and articulable suspicion."
We won't have a good sense of how many legal Hispanics were forced into producing proof of citizenship/residency because the police will never report that number.
They'll hold a little parade every time they deport someone though.
I predict that there will be on outpouring of stories on liberal and immigration issue blogs of people being harassed. I further predict that you will dismiss this as anecdotal, politically biased, and not representative.
ethnicity can't be the sole determining factor. Ethnicity can be considered.
Anyone who thinks that the AZ law won't lead to profiling is deluding themselves.