Gotta agree with this actually. I've tried the online dating thing a few times, have gotten a few dates out of it, but nothing that has ever really lasted longer than a month.
Contrast this with relationships that began with meeting someone in real life and hitting it off (friends-of-friends usually) - and they usually last somewhere around six months to a year. I think the difference is the only thing we really have in common on online dating sites is that everyone involved is looking for someone to date, and are somewhat socially awkward, whereas people you meet in real life generally have at least whatever it is you were doing when you met them in common with you - and often have much more.
If the law doesn't explicitly allow for cases where the mother's life is in danger, any abortion would still result in an arrest and a trial, whereupon a jury would decide whether or not they believe the doctor is telling the truth that the procedure was still medically necessary. Self-defense or not, that's still months of your life thrown into turmoil, massive legal bills, and an enormous emotional burden on someone who is already in a pretty precarious place.
Your attitude towards things would ruin lives for absolutely no benefit to society.
They both share the core concept of being angry, disorganized young people (usually men) desperately searching for a purpose in life, who can be easily whipped up into a frenzy by someone charismatic. Attacking the "bad" people without regard to consequences is MUCH easier than actually building yourself up through hard work, study, etc. The actual leaders are often insulated by virtue of being better at hiding their tracks, or simply not taking a direct role in the attacks at all.
The main difference is the members of Anonymous don't believe they're going to get caught, so they don't need the level of despair it would take to convince someone to willingly commit suicide.
He WAS authorized. The only way he had of verifying that the employee wasn't authorized to give him what he needed.
If someone with the key to my house lets a stranger into my house and says, "take this stuff" - the stranger isn't criminally at fault, because he has every reason to believe the person with a key to my house is authorized to be in there and tell him to take stuff.
Use everything we can get from other people first, when they're out, or try to strongarm us by refusing to sell whatever important resource it is we have, say, "oh look here! We have stuff! Fuck off!"
It's an excellent example of long-term planning. Y'know, the stuff people are always wishing we'd do?
"Teabgger" is a word members of the Tea Party use to identify themselves. There is no hand tipping going on here.
We internet folks just think it's hilarious because old people apparently have no idea what their kids are talking about when they're playing Halo. Or, (my pet theory) a tea party marketer is intentionally trolling us.
An Economist could probably go into greater detail about just how fucking bad an idea this is, and all the consequences from it, but anyone with even a mild grasp of economics knows it's a bad idea.
Not a Typo, found the paragraph in TFA where the author is calculating out the 42 trillion figure. He's starting from different figures, citing the amount of water that falls "During a heavy rainstorm," which is going to be much higher than "Typical rainfall."
There are so many laws in the states these days, it's impossible to know for certain you haven't done anything illegal. If someone watches you for long enough, they WILL find something to nail your ass to the ground for.
An "Unshakable" belief in science or religion is mutually exclusive with the other, because the two do directly contradict each other at times. The people who are willing to accept those contradictions and either explain them away or ignore them are not the type of people who would go out spreading their message despite any adversity they came across.
Obviously, this depends on the religion you adhere to, and the field of study that's being contradicted, Evolution is popular to argue about sure, but Science also contradicts the religious belief that Lightning is Thor throwing down Mjolnir, for example.
Key word here is 'unshakable.' Believing in both simultaneously forces you to make little compromises like "It's okay to ignore that contradictory part of scripture because it's just meant as a metaphor" or "It's okay to believe this without proof because the whole point is faith."
From the applicant side of the pool (Going into my senior year of an EE program this fall) - almost everyone for recent college grads. Near as I can tell, it's just an HR checkmark for tossing out resumes.
I'm told that once someone has a few years of work experience, almost no-one cares about your GPA anymore.
If you lack people skills to the degree that someone is noticing it, you are costing the company money. People who have friends at work are generally happier, and more productive.
Meanwhile, people who hate their co-workers are often updating their resume, and looking for work elsewhere, while doing the bare minimum it takes to stay employed until they can find a better job.
Slashdot Mirror
I've had a few wink/poke/etc. But they tend to be the ugly ones.
Gotta agree with this actually. I've tried the online dating thing a few times, have gotten a few dates out of it, but nothing that has ever really lasted longer than a month.
Contrast this with relationships that began with meeting someone in real life and hitting it off (friends-of-friends usually) - and they usually last somewhere around six months to a year. I think the difference is the only thing we really have in common on online dating sites is that everyone involved is looking for someone to date, and are somewhat socially awkward, whereas people you meet in real life generally have at least whatever it is you were doing when you met them in common with you - and often have much more.
Wealthy ones inevitably get seduced by a gold-digger at some point. Sometimes it even results in the geek having children!
If the law doesn't explicitly allow for cases where the mother's life is in danger, any abortion would still result in an arrest and a trial, whereupon a jury would decide whether or not they believe the doctor is telling the truth that the procedure was still medically necessary. Self-defense or not, that's still months of your life thrown into turmoil, massive legal bills, and an enormous emotional burden on someone who is already in a pretty precarious place.
Your attitude towards things would ruin lives for absolutely no benefit to society.
They both share the core concept of being angry, disorganized young people (usually men) desperately searching for a purpose in life, who can be easily whipped up into a frenzy by someone charismatic. Attacking the "bad" people without regard to consequences is MUCH easier than actually building yourself up through hard work, study, etc. The actual leaders are often insulated by virtue of being better at hiding their tracks, or simply not taking a direct role in the attacks at all.
The main difference is the members of Anonymous don't believe they're going to get caught, so they don't need the level of despair it would take to convince someone to willingly commit suicide.
I like his version better.
He WAS authorized. The only way he had of verifying that the employee wasn't authorized to give him what he needed.
If someone with the key to my house lets a stranger into my house and says, "take this stuff" - the stranger isn't criminally at fault, because he has every reason to believe the person with a key to my house is authorized to be in there and tell him to take stuff.
fair enough.
They spend years destroying their own environment, and as a result, their descendants are too sick to come invade us and take ours once they run out.
Use everything we can get from other people first, when they're out, or try to strongarm us by refusing to sell whatever important resource it is we have, say, "oh look here! We have stuff! Fuck off!"
It's an excellent example of long-term planning. Y'know, the stuff people are always wishing we'd do?
Oh snap! You're right.
If !A -> B
Therefore A -> !B
Don't agree with him if you're going to turn around and disagree.
I don't care if your statement is semantically different.
"Teabgger" is a word members of the Tea Party use to identify themselves. There is no hand tipping going on here.
We internet folks just think it's hilarious because old people apparently have no idea what their kids are talking about when they're playing Halo. Or, (my pet theory) a tea party marketer is intentionally trolling us.
This is economics 101 bro.
An Economist could probably go into greater detail about just how fucking bad an idea this is, and all the consequences from it, but anyone with even a mild grasp of economics knows it's a bad idea.
Not a Typo, found the paragraph in TFA where the author is calculating out the 42 trillion figure. He's starting from different figures, citing the amount of water that falls "During a heavy rainstorm," which is going to be much higher than "Typical rainfall."
According to Wikipedia 505.000 cubic kilometers of water falls on the earth every year.
This translates to 5.05x10^17 liters/year, or 16,013,444,951 liters/second, which is about 2 trillion times more than Venus, rather than 42x.
So... Typo on the part of the Summary?
successful troll is successful! But still a troll.
Self-important prick.
I avoid doing anything illegal
There are so many laws in the states these days, it's impossible to know for certain you haven't done anything illegal. If someone watches you for long enough, they WILL find something to nail your ass to the ground for.
An "Unshakable" belief in science or religion is mutually exclusive with the other, because the two do directly contradict each other at times. The people who are willing to accept those contradictions and either explain them away or ignore them are not the type of people who would go out spreading their message despite any adversity they came across.
Obviously, this depends on the religion you adhere to, and the field of study that's being contradicted, Evolution is popular to argue about sure, but Science also contradicts the religious belief that Lightning is Thor throwing down Mjolnir, for example.
Key word here is 'unshakable.' Believing in both simultaneously forces you to make little compromises like "It's okay to ignore that contradictory part of scripture because it's just meant as a metaphor" or "It's okay to believe this without proof because the whole point is faith."
No Feet == No Shoes.
From the applicant side of the pool (Going into my senior year of an EE program this fall) - almost everyone for recent college grads. Near as I can tell, it's just an HR checkmark for tossing out resumes.
I'm told that once someone has a few years of work experience, almost no-one cares about your GPA anymore.
If you lack people skills to the degree that someone is noticing it, you are costing the company money. People who have friends at work are generally happier, and more productive.
Meanwhile, people who hate their co-workers are often updating their resume, and looking for work elsewhere, while doing the bare minimum it takes to stay employed until they can find a better job.
How can you prove something exists?
Lookin'.
Obligatory