Shouldn't that foster an attitude of opposing hypocrisy rather than an attitude of opposing science? It sounds like a pretty perfect example of the ad hominem fallacy to me.
From an economic perspective, money saved is money wasted -- if it's not changing hands, it's not helping the economy. So, which rich fat cat is helping our economy, the one you say is "wasting" money, or the one who is sitting on his nest egg, not letting it trickle down?
That's true, however it's usually followed by some BS line about "The guy I'm voting for is different" (and, by the way, it doesn't really matter which guy they are voting for).
The DEMOCRATS set it to expire this year so they could accuse Republicans of being evil
That implies that the democrats knew, for a fact, they'd lose their majority somewhere within those five years. Are you suggesting the democrats are psychic?
You don't hear about this side of the issue because the media is biased
Oh bullshit you don't. I've heard about both bills together every time I've heard about either. The problem with the Republican bill is that it had an integrated political landmine attached to it (ripping funding from another democratic bill to pay for it). I'm sick of this dumbass statement about the media being biased. What a load of shit.
It seems like that is the Republican perspective, doesn't it? Almost everything boils down to money. We live in a very individualist society here in the US, so it should be expected -- but I find it disappointing.
However, I don't think it's that money becomes more important than their ideals. I think it is actually that their ideals are based on money in the first place.
I have the hardest time understand how the "Small government" Republicans can reject the notion of reducing subsidies to oil companies. It makes no sense... it seems like an obvious place to get back some of our federal budget, yet they defend it tooth and nail.
Facebook owes you THEIR ENTIRE BUSINESS MODEL because without you and the millions of others like you they have no product, no customers, no revenue and no business.
That doesn't hold water. Just because their model is based on you doesn't mean they owe you anything. They've obviously already provided something of value to hundreds of millions of people and still been able to support this business model. Why would hundreds of millions of people keep using it if they felt Facebook was in debt to them?
Couldn't you replace every instance of "Google" with "Facebook" and "Search" with "Social Network" and still have your comment be true?
Facebook? Anyone claiming they can be replaced in 5 years just has NO idea how much work it really was to get to where they are today. The fact that it's trivially simple to social network on Facebook and find almost anyone in 100ms does NOT MEAN it's a trivially simple thing to implement. It means they have spent an insane amount of time and money to make it trivially simple to use.
There are a LOT of social network engines that failed over the years... but why? Because Facebook was so much better there was no reason to use them. Until someone makes something better, I don't think they are in any danger of irrelevance...
Again, which of his positions do you find extreme? Protecting the Bill of Rights? Not bombing random countries willy-nilly? Supporting Internet freedom?
Agreed, but we shouldn't ridicule people who pursue new technology. Just because the first iteration doesn't make sense doesn't mean its descendants won't.
The gasoline engine of this plane is not flight critical. Without it you just have a very short range but it won't cause you to fall out of the sky.
The same could be said of the electric engine... You don't fly a plane if it has a known engine malfunction -- regardless of if it has a second or backup engine. That plane never gets past preflight, if the PIC is doing his job correctly.
I was coming here to post a question about how long it would be before someone made this President Obama's fault, but I see you've already taken care of it. Congrats on your trolling efficiency!
Please mod parent up -- you have to donate almost all of your income to charity in order for the two to cancel out on your tax bill. This is because charitable contributions come off of your total taxable income. You'd have to donate enough that it dropped your overall income into a non-taxed bracket.
It's not that I don't agree with the notion of pooling our money without government, but the idea that...
Because it's tax-deductible, it's roughly the same thing as paying it in taxes, so no net loss to the citizen.
...isn't even close. It's a deduction, not a credit.
Stop saying "This." It's not a statement. It provides no context, especially in the case where your parent post is not modded up, and Slashdot provides a way to easily quote the parent using blockquote tags. It makes you look pretentious and douchey, so stop "This."-ing.
Uh... Citation, please? I drive through a small town with a too-low speed limit every day with traffic going 5-10 over, and they've never considered raising that limit.
Actually the tone I read from that article made it look more like they were not happy that he labeled patent trolls as "terrorists" -- they have a patent on labeling their enemies as "terrorists," you know.
She wasn't even protesting TSA, and it's not clear to anyone why she even stripped naked. If the airports have their own obscenity laws, they certainly aren't being applied anywhere close to evenly.
In fact, that these events happened so recent to each other implies that if there is such a "law" inside the airports jurisdiction, they are selectively enforcing it with the man in Portland to suppress his freedom of expression.
Slashdot Mirror
Shouldn't that foster an attitude of opposing hypocrisy rather than an attitude of opposing science? It sounds like a pretty perfect example of the ad hominem fallacy to me.
From an economic perspective, money saved is money wasted -- if it's not changing hands, it's not helping the economy. So, which rich fat cat is helping our economy, the one you say is "wasting" money, or the one who is sitting on his nest egg, not letting it trickle down?
Since it's possible to be a "workout geek," the term the title probably should have used is "nerd."
That's true, however it's usually followed by some BS line about "The guy I'm voting for is different" (and, by the way, it doesn't really matter which guy they are voting for).
That implies that the democrats knew, for a fact, they'd lose their majority somewhere within those five years. Are you suggesting the democrats are psychic?
Oh bullshit you don't. I've heard about both bills together every time I've heard about either. The problem with the Republican bill is that it had an integrated political landmine attached to it (ripping funding from another democratic bill to pay for it). I'm sick of this dumbass statement about the media being biased. What a load of shit.
It seems like that is the Republican perspective, doesn't it? Almost everything boils down to money. We live in a very individualist society here in the US, so it should be expected -- but I find it disappointing.
However, I don't think it's that money becomes more important than their ideals. I think it is actually that their ideals are based on money in the first place.
There are ways to reduce a bubble without bursting it. The world is not black & white.
I have the hardest time understand how the "Small government" Republicans can reject the notion of reducing subsidies to oil companies. It makes no sense... it seems like an obvious place to get back some of our federal budget, yet they defend it tooth and nail.
So they want to pay for this by taking money provided by a bill they are going to repeal anyway -- which means that money will no longer exist...?
That doesn't hold water. Just because their model is based on you doesn't mean they owe you anything. They've obviously already provided something of value to hundreds of millions of people and still been able to support this business model. Why would hundreds of millions of people keep using it if they felt Facebook was in debt to them?
Yup, turns out -- you can.
His economic policies.
Yes, you are correct, the number I reported should have been in lbs.
Agreed, but we shouldn't ridicule people who pursue new technology. Just because the first iteration doesn't make sense doesn't mean its descendants won't.
Are you sure you don't mean 1400kg? (and btw a C182's empty weight is 1,970kg)
The same could be said of the electric engine... You don't fly a plane if it has a known engine malfunction -- regardless of if it has a second or backup engine. That plane never gets past preflight, if the PIC is doing his job correctly.
I was coming here to post a question about how long it would be before someone made this President Obama's fault, but I see you've already taken care of it. Congrats on your trolling efficiency!
If analytic thinking decreases religious beliefs, then I'd say religions should feel quite secure in today's world.
It's not that I don't agree with the notion of pooling our money without government, but the idea that...
So... Scientists are lazy and stupid? I mean, they certainly aren't rich, so by your "logic" they must be, right?
Stop saying "This." It's not a statement. It provides no context, especially in the case where your parent post is not modded up, and Slashdot provides a way to easily quote the parent using blockquote tags. It makes you look pretentious and douchey, so stop "This."-ing.
Uh... Citation, please? I drive through a small town with a too-low speed limit every day with traffic going 5-10 over, and they've never considered raising that limit.
Actually the tone I read from that article made it look more like they were not happy that he labeled patent trolls as "terrorists" -- they have a patent on labeling their enemies as "terrorists," you know.
If that's the case, why would there not have been an arrest made in this case: http://kdvr.com/2012/04/10/woman-strips-naked-at-dia/
She wasn't even protesting TSA, and it's not clear to anyone why she even stripped naked. If the airports have their own obscenity laws, they certainly aren't being applied anywhere close to evenly.
In fact, that these events happened so recent to each other implies that if there is such a "law" inside the airports jurisdiction, they are selectively enforcing it with the man in Portland to suppress his freedom of expression.