So basically, the program has cost only 8% more than what they estimated it would cost. They've just been able to keep the drones aloft for a lot fewer hours than expected (cost of pilots being traded off for cost of maintenance crew). The reporter, trying to exaggerate things to make his story sound bigger than it really is, then converted that overall cost into cost per flight hour and compared on that basis since it showed the biggest cost overrun.
Quick rule of thumb. Cost (dollars) is an amount. $/hr is a rate (first derivative of the amount). If you see an article claiming something about an amount (cost overrun), but then shows comparisons of a rate, that's a big red flag. Something deceptive may be going on, and you should do some number checking to figure out what the real story is.
You're 'effing looney! Cost per year is also a rate. When a DHS audit reports that OpEx was $62.4M/yr to complete less than 1/4 of the work/yr that the program was anticipated to do, you cannot simply dismiss the fact through amount-versus-rate mumbo jumbo. When the program office reports that its OpEx was only $12M/yr while asking to double the size of its fleet, whether you characterize those figures as amounts or rates, that's a big red flag.
First item: the cost per flight hour was not calculated by a reporter. It was calculated by the DHS Office of Inspector General, which is perfectly capable of calculating an OpEx. And yes, the period is only FY2013.
Second, you cannot treat OpEx as a fixed cost, spread that OpEx over an anticipated time of operation, compare that to a boondoggled OpEx spread over a much shorter actual time of operation, and declare "the program has cost only 8% more than what they estimated it would cost." If your security service only covered 1/4 of its shifts with its personnel budget, and dropped the other 3/4 for lack of funds, you're not going to congratulate them for staying within budget. And that was not an estimate of what it would cost -- it was a post-hoc analysis of cost that was presumably used in their push for expansion of the program.
Your comment proves that you can lead a horse to an OIG report, but you apparently can't make him read it (hint: it was the very first link). The breakdown of the respective calculations appears on page 8. In short:
program calculation: (Maintenance, Satellite Link, and Fuel @ $12,043,508 + Sensor Operations, Operational Support, Engineering Services, Base Overhead, and Depreciation @ $0 + Personnel @ $0 ) / 4880 flight hrs = $2,468/flight hr
Something deceptive may be going on, and you should do some number checking to figure out what the real story is.
In my checking, the best point of all was found on page 5 under the heading "UAS Flight Hours":
According to OAM's UAS CONOPS, by FY 2013, OAM anticipated four 16hour unmanned aircraft patrols every day of the year, or 23,296 total flight hours. However, the unmanned aircraft logged a combined total of 5,102 flight hours, or about 80 percent less than what OAM anticipated. According to OAM, the aircraft did not fly more primarily because of budget constraints, which prevented OAM from obtaining the personnel, spare parts and other infrastructure for operations, and maintenance necessary for more flight hours.
Double the size of my drone fleet! Because I already am flying 80% below my own anticipated capacity due to budget constraints. Nevermind that my actual operating costs are also almost 4x higher than what I'm telling you. We can fix that in post.
But this is *not* what the article appears to be measuring. He measured that the time to synchronize a changes were nearly identical in rsync and "ZFS replication" - except when it comes to renames.
Yet this is what the article says. Does he really have to measure read time to the millisecond instead of providing an estimate? How fast can your disk system read off 2TB of information, anyway?
"Virtualization keeps getting more and more prevalent, and VMs mean gigantic single files. rsync has a lot of trouble with these. The tool can save you network bandwidth when synchronizing a huge file with only a few changes, but it can't save you disk bandwidth, since rsync needs to read through and tokenize the entire file on both ends before it can even begin moving data across the wire. This was enough to be painful, even on our little 8GB test file. On a two terabyte VM image, it turns into a complete non-starter. I can (and do!) sync a two terabyte VM image daily (across a 5mbps Internet connection) usually in well under an hour. Rsync would need about seven hours just to tokenize those files before it even began actually synchronizing them... and it would render the entire system practically unusable while it did, since it would be greedily reading from the disks at maximum speed in order to do so." (emphasis mine)
Memory error: confusing the admiral's name with a similar ship name. It was Yamato. Now I will have to hide from military enthusiasts and anime fans alike until the apocalypse obliterates the internet.
As to the language of the law as described in the article summary, the word "model" was used. The implication in the past has meant "scale model", ie, a reduced-size version approximating a real machine. Since quadcopters don't have full-scale human-pilotable equivalents, these are not "model aircraft" by the strictest definition of the terminology.
But they are by the actual definition of the terminology. Because the meaning of the terminology was specifically defined for the purposes of this exclusion:
SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT.
(c) MODEL AIRCRAFT DEFINED. -- In this section, the term "model aircraft" means an unmanned aircraft that is --
(1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere;
(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and
(3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.
This is even mentioned in the article. This "disruptive technology" could be a helium-filled model of the battleship Yamamoto decked out to look like the original Star Blazers wave-motion-gun bearing "spaceship" and it would still be a "model aircraft" for the purposes of the exclusion.
[E]ven if the new laws do not apply to scale-model fixed-wing or scale-model helicopters, the argument can be made they apply perfectly well to quadcopters and other small RC aircraft.
No idea what you're trying to say here. Whether the rules apply to these devices is irrelevant if the FAA lacks authority to make the rule in the first place.
**Ultimately, Uber isn't take advantage of the drivers, riders are.**
The riders don't specify either the terms and conditions or the price. Uber does. Given that, how you rationalize shifting all the responsibility from Uber to the riders escapes me...
No, only between 1970 and 2013 (you really need to read your sources more carefully).
Properly accounted for, we should count all emissions since 1800, and we should penalize countries based on the carbon release related to deforestation. If you do that, Europe looks pretty bad.
Counting should be done from when effects of CO2 were proven (that the governments chose to ignore it is what needs penalty)
John Tyndall, 1859. Too early for your arbitrary start point to meaningfully contribute to a European game of "not it."
The fact that most gun owners are responsible is true but irrelevant. The problem is that some people ARE killers and we can't tell who they are in most cases prior to them putting bullets into people.... and groups like the NRA fight even the most reasonable efforts to contain the problem tooth and nail.
The fact that you see no contradiction between the opening and the closing of your final paragraph is telling. You can't tell who they are in most cases, but it's "reasonable" to impose all sorts of hurdles on 'irrelevant' responsible gun owners in the vain hope that you can achieve a marked reduction of gun crime. Real world efficacy be damned.
California has implemented essentially every reasonable control measure proposed to date, and advocates even admit that "[n]ot every law can prevent every gun death" (Allison Anderman, Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence), but god forbid anyone question whether yet another supposedly reasonable regulation like tying background check results to a due-process-free terrorist watch list is as reasonable and worthwhile as some believe.
This is why people outside the firearms industry buy in to the NRA's "propaganda." By which I actually mean "disagree with you" and "lobby to get their way just like everyone else."
(1) No fusion versus (2) deuterium fusion versus (3) normal hydrogen fusion is not a binary distinction. At least in the eyes of the astronomical community.
That's not even considering that we infer fusion from the observed temperature of the body, which is definitely a sliding scale, in combination with an assumed mass and age. Once you get down to brown dwarf scale, you cannot draw a binary conclusion.
So, yes, there is a "sliding scale" in practical astronomy.
The human body is way more precise in long-term energy intake regulation than any bean-counting diet can ever be. Just have a look at groups of people who diet mostly on energy-dense food, like those on ketogenic diets or ethnic groups eating mostly fatty fish and whale meat etc. - those sure don't have an obesity epidemic because of that.
It's cute how realitydisagrees with your unsubstantiated bullshit. Especially when these people are not actually eating ketogenic diets and you're bitching about a carbohydrate replacement.
How nice. I'm sure they would only ever use the internet to learn about flower arranging and xylophone playing. It's not like they'd use it to continue managing their illegal operations and their gang from the inside, or threatening the people who helped put them in there - is it?
If only they weren't unreasonably seeking to use the most surveilled communications medium on Earth! There's no way to know what they're doing, much less punish such anonymous and unlocatable scofflaws!
Neither this nor the noodle surrogate will trick your body to think it has been supplied with enough energy.
Not the point. The point is to reduce the energy density of the food while, hopefully, retaining most of its other characteristics.
Your body does not instantly know when you've ingested enough calories to be satiated. If your food is highly energy dense, it is easy to overshoot. If you have to actually eat for 15-30 minutes to get enough calories for your meal, the odds are far better that you'll feel full after consuming the appropriate amount of calories rather than the double-whammy-megablast that is that second quarter-pounder with cheese.
A message sent from the same account used in previous campaigns by the scammers demands a payment of 1 BTC or else the Patreon user will have their personal information exposed.
Ashley Madison users had something that they might want to hide - the fact that they had signed up for the site which when combined with an assumption that they'd used it to cheat would be socially costly.
But oh noes! Someone might find out that you crowdfunded an artist to create culture! Boy... really going to be ashamed of that one, aren't you?
Not a member of either, but can't possibly think of why I'd pay in this new instance.
I'm not sure where you live, but there are absolutely zero free markets on planet Earth. Over the last 40 years prices have moved further toward taking people for everything possible and giving the least possible. That is what monopolization and deregulation (legalizing bribery) has done. If you believe you live in a free market, you have never attempted to own a business. In fact you have no idea about the history of Microsoft, BP, Standard Oil, Chiquita, Dole, Monsanto, etc.. etc...
Non-sequitur. There's no salmon monopoly.
find it really odd that people have such selective memory and comprehension ability. When it suits people to call it a new species they do, but in this case people play dumb.
Reductio ad absurdum, yourself. I have dogs of various breeds, but they're not different species. There's far more than a single gene of difference there.
If I purchase sausage and it's 20% pork 80% beef, it's labelled that way.
But it's not required to be. Go to your market and look at the sausage packages. Some will specify beef, pork, turkey, etc. and some will not. Particularly when you go to different styles of sausage (e.g., braunscweiger.)
And that is a spectacularly bad example since the package is not required to list the breed of cow or the breed of pig. All of which have a far larger number of genetic differences than this salmon. Yet, like the salmon, we've decided that the differences are inconsequential and therefore do no require them to be included on the food label.
I'd rather make sure you are not dead after a few meals before I try it.
The FDA tested this for 20 years. You're well past "a few meals" and into AGW-denier levels of anti-scientific crazy.
The dream of the [producers] is lower production costs for the same selling prices, nothing more, nothing less.
Fixed that for you. As if it was ever any different in farming, light manufacturing, heavy manufacturing, or even services.
The price of a thing is not proportional to production costs. The price of a thing is established by a balance between supply and demand. If you as a producer can cut your costs, you still charge what the market will bear. The only thing that will drop what you charge is greater supply (e.g., others discovering how to produce more cheaply as well) or lesser demand (e.g., your cost-cutting lowers the quality of what is being produced).
Will they be qualitatively different? of course! faster grown species are always noticeably different. Their trick of course is they will market them as the original species, which they now are not.
You're not going to create a "new species" by inserting one gene and a promoter. As for the difference between phenotypes of the same species caused by this engineering -- so what? Just like differences in farm raised versus wild, frozen versus refrigerated versus fresh etc., none of which are required to be labeled, it's all sold under a name. Some names will have a reputation for good quality and some for being cheap. Put on your big boy pants and shop for this like you shop for every other food item in existence.
I was under the impression that all this fuss about "free market" required "perfectly informed parties", right?
You were not. Does the food that you purchase identify the conglomerate which entirely owns the folksy subsidiary whos name appears on the product? Does it identify the wage scale of the workers who gathered, made, and/or packaged it? Do your canned foods even say "lined with BPA?"
You never had that impression. You're merely dragging out a trope of long-disproven economic theory in an attempt to require that a food product include a politically-driven disclosure that the producer does not wish to use.
I would like labeling because I can afford to spend a little extra to stick to my values.
Then buy a product labeled "GMO Free."
I still think it should need to be labeled.
But can you explain why they should have to label it as a GMO product, and more to the point can you explain how that reason relates to a significant property of the item iteself rather than the political considerations that you are raising?
The problem you face is that the FDA cannot identify any significant difference in the item itself. Therefore the FDA cannot compel the labeling that you want. Just as the USDA cannot compel eggs to be labeled as "battery cage eggs," pork to be labeled as "gestation crate tenderloin," etc.
You want to force someone selling a product to label it in a way that will probably be detrimental to their business based upon a political position, or at best objections to a manufacturing process. Yet those do not change the physical characteristics or quality of what you're actually purchasing. Nor is this modification/farming practice illegal (having now obtained approval). So no, it does not need to be labeled any differently.
You are free to seek out products labeled by their proponents as having been made in the manner you want. However, compelled speech violates the freedom of speech as surely as compelled silence. Whether you think it "should" be said does not change the fact of the matter until you show some rational basis for a regulation requiring such labeling.
"I get it. I understand the appeal of a stock car race. It's just exciting, and I'm all for it," he writes. "I just want NASCAR to adapt to the new mainstream. I want the circuit to produce vehicles that could compete in races anywhere in the world, and win. I want the racing series to spin off new tech that will do more with less. For me, as an American mechanical engineer, I hope NASCAR decides to look forward rather than backward."
This is just another thinly veiled attack on Christianity and other religions. As a Christian I find this offensive, but I expect no one cares since I'm also a white male.
Do you have a similar problem with open attacks on each of of homosexuality, gay marriage, atheism, secular humanism, and evolution?
Just curious, because I repeatedly see Christians who fully endorse attacking the beliefs of others because, by God, Christians are right and those others are wrong.
It was a game of cyber-warfare and there are no rules in a game like this. The only possible rule would be try not to kill anybody but other than that anything goes.
But you just said there are no rules. In the real world once I knew where you were I could bomb you and/or the computer hosting your link. Therefore I should be able to walk over to you in the tournament and shoot you in the head. Your poor opsec is your problem, not mine.
You're not saying that there's no rules, you're saying that you'll only obey the rules that you believe should exist. The problem is, I do not have to believe in same rules, or in fact any at all.
You can either agree to mutual rules, cheat, or admit that there are absolutely no rules. What you can't do is agree to rules, violate those rules, and then claim that you're not a cheat.
That title definitely makes this book sound like it takes a balanced and objective viewpoint of the situation, with both sides of the argument covered.
Yes, keep your advocacy and lobbying where it belongs... at $5000/plate fundraisers where the candidate can essentially ignore you because you've already paid.
Fast forward to 2005 and there's a new "HPV vaccine" legally required to be administered to all Texas schoolgirls virtually on the day it was cleared for use by the FDA. Tell me there's no profit in a vaccine that state Governors push laws through to require for school attendance.
Except "2005" was actually February 2007, "legally required" was an executive order issued by then-Governor Rick Perry ("individual liberty-R-us"), and the Texas legislature promptly overrode the executive order in June 2007 so that there never was any "legally required" vaccination for school attendance.
Moderated to +4 informative, yet almost completely wrong on the objectively veribiable information. I think I'll disregard your HPV treatment anecdote as well...
You're clearly trying to spin this to match your narrative. Well, I'm here to tell you it's a spindly argument; you can't just serve stuff like that up on a platter, step by step, and expect everyone to nod their heads. Are you tracking me solidly now? Or are you still in a state?
Don't be dense. We're not quite as susceptible to your magnetic personality as you believe. Now step off and voice your opinions somewhere else.
Slashdot Mirror
You're 'effing looney! Cost per year is also a rate. When a DHS audit reports that OpEx was $62.4M/yr to complete less than 1/4 of the work/yr that the program was anticipated to do, you cannot simply dismiss the fact through amount-versus-rate mumbo jumbo. When the program office reports that its OpEx was only $12M/yr while asking to double the size of its fleet, whether you characterize those figures as amounts or rates, that's a big red flag.
First item: the cost per flight hour was not calculated by a reporter. It was calculated by the DHS Office of Inspector General, which is perfectly capable of calculating an OpEx. And yes, the period is only FY2013.
Second, you cannot treat OpEx as a fixed cost, spread that OpEx over an anticipated time of operation, compare that to a boondoggled OpEx spread over a much shorter actual time of operation, and declare "the program has cost only 8% more than what they estimated it would cost." If your security service only covered 1/4 of its shifts with its personnel budget, and dropped the other 3/4 for lack of funds, you're not going to congratulate them for staying within budget. And that was not an estimate of what it would cost -- it was a post-hoc analysis of cost that was presumably used in their push for expansion of the program.
Your comment proves that you can lead a horse to an OIG report, but you apparently can't make him read it (hint: it was the very first link). The breakdown of the respective calculations appears on page 8. In short:
OIG calculation: (Maintenance, Satellite Link, Fuel, Sensor Operations, Operational Support, Engineering Services, Base Overhead, and Depreciation @ $45,399,538 + Personnel @ $17,125,546) / 5102 flight hrs = $12,225/flight hr
program calculation: (Maintenance, Satellite Link, and Fuel @ $12,043,508 + Sensor Operations, Operational Support, Engineering Services, Base Overhead, and Depreciation @ $0 + Personnel @ $0 ) / 4880 flight hrs = $2,468/flight hr
In my checking, the best point of all was found on page 5 under the heading "UAS Flight Hours":
Double the size of my drone fleet! Because I already am flying 80% below my own anticipated capacity due to budget constraints. Nevermind that my actual operating costs are also almost 4x higher than what I'm telling you. We can fix that in post.
Yet this is what the article says. Does he really have to measure read time to the millisecond instead of providing an estimate? How fast can your disk system read off 2TB of information, anyway?
"Virtualization keeps getting more and more prevalent, and VMs mean gigantic single files. rsync has a lot of trouble with these. The tool can save you network bandwidth when synchronizing a huge file with only a few changes, but it can't save you disk bandwidth, since rsync needs to read through and tokenize the entire file on both ends before it can even begin moving data across the wire. This was enough to be painful, even on our little 8GB test file. On a two terabyte VM image, it turns into a complete non-starter. I can (and do!) sync a two terabyte VM image daily (across a 5mbps Internet connection) usually in well under an hour. Rsync would need about seven hours just to tokenize those files before it even began actually synchronizing them... and it would render the entire system practically unusable while it did, since it would be greedily reading from the disks at maximum speed in order to do so." (emphasis mine)
Memory error: confusing the admiral's name with a similar ship name. It was Yamato. Now I will have to hide from military enthusiasts and anime fans alike until the apocalypse obliterates the internet.
But they are by the actual definition of the terminology. Because the meaning of the terminology was specifically defined for the purposes of this exclusion:
SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT.
(c) MODEL AIRCRAFT DEFINED. -- In this section, the term "model
aircraft" means an unmanned aircraft that is --
(1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere;
(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating
the aircraft; and
(3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.
This is even mentioned in the article. This "disruptive technology" could be a helium-filled model of the battleship Yamamoto decked out to look like the original Star Blazers wave-motion-gun bearing "spaceship" and it would still be a "model aircraft" for the purposes of the exclusion.
No idea what you're trying to say here. Whether the rules apply to these devices is irrelevant if the FAA lacks authority to make the rule in the first place.
The riders don't specify either the terms and conditions or the price. Uber does. Given that, how you rationalize shifting all the responsibility from Uber to the riders escapes me...
John Tyndall, 1859. Too early for your arbitrary start point to meaningfully contribute to a European game of "not it."
The fact that you see no contradiction between the opening and the closing of your final paragraph is telling. You can't tell who they are in most cases, but it's "reasonable" to impose all sorts of hurdles on 'irrelevant' responsible gun owners in the vain hope that you can achieve a marked reduction of gun crime. Real world efficacy be damned.
California has implemented essentially every reasonable control measure proposed to date, and advocates even admit that "[n]ot every law can prevent every gun death" (Allison Anderman, Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence), but god forbid anyone question whether yet another supposedly reasonable regulation like tying background check results to a due-process-free terrorist watch list is as reasonable and worthwhile as some believe.
This is why people outside the firearms industry buy in to the NRA's "propaganda." By which I actually mean "disagree with you" and "lobby to get their way just like everyone else."
(1) No fusion versus (2) deuterium fusion versus (3) normal hydrogen fusion is not a binary distinction. At least in the eyes of the astronomical community.
That's not even considering that we infer fusion from the observed temperature of the body, which is definitely a sliding scale, in combination with an assumed mass and age. Once you get down to brown dwarf scale, you cannot draw a binary conclusion.
So, yes, there is a "sliding scale" in practical astronomy.
It's cute how reality disagrees with your unsubstantiated bullshit. Especially when these people are not actually eating ketogenic diets and you're bitching about a carbohydrate replacement.
If only they weren't unreasonably seeking to use the most surveilled communications medium on Earth! There's no way to know what they're doing, much less punish such anonymous and unlocatable scofflaws!
Oh, wait...
Not the point. The point is to reduce the energy density of the food while, hopefully, retaining most of its other characteristics.
Your body does not instantly know when you've ingested enough calories to be satiated. If your food is highly energy dense, it is easy to overshoot. If you have to actually eat for 15-30 minutes to get enough calories for your meal, the odds are far better that you'll feel full after consuming the appropriate amount of calories rather than the double-whammy-megablast that is that second quarter-pounder with cheese.
I regret to inform you that a self-loathing artificial construct does not count as a part of everyone.
We love you anyway, Anonymous Coward Tamagotchi #12.
If you're being booked, you've been arrested.
Of course, the police report also reads "Arrestee being in possession of a hoax bomb at MacArthur High School." Maybe you should call the Irving police and explain to them how you belive that he was not arrested.
Ashley Madison users had something that they might want to hide - the fact that they had signed up for the site which when combined with an assumption that they'd used it to cheat would be socially costly.
But oh noes! Someone might find out that you crowdfunded an artist to create culture! Boy... really going to be ashamed of that one, aren't you?
Not a member of either, but can't possibly think of why I'd pay in this new instance.
Non-sequitur. There's no salmon monopoly.
Reductio ad absurdum, yourself. I have dogs of various breeds, but they're not different species. There's far more than a single gene of difference there.
But it's not required to be. Go to your market and look at the sausage packages. Some will specify beef, pork, turkey, etc. and some will not. Particularly when you go to different styles of sausage (e.g., braunscweiger.)
And that is a spectacularly bad example since the package is not required to list the breed of cow or the breed of pig. All of which have a far larger number of genetic differences than this salmon. Yet, like the salmon, we've decided that the differences are inconsequential and therefore do no require them to be included on the food label.
The FDA tested this for 20 years. You're well past "a few meals" and into AGW-denier levels of anti-scientific crazy.
Fixed that for you. As if it was ever any different in farming, light manufacturing, heavy manufacturing, or even services.
The price of a thing is not proportional to production costs. The price of a thing is established by a balance between supply and demand. If you as a producer can cut your costs, you still charge what the market will bear. The only thing that will drop what you charge is greater supply (e.g., others discovering how to produce more cheaply as well) or lesser demand (e.g., your cost-cutting lowers the quality of what is being produced).
You're not going to create a "new species" by inserting one gene and a promoter. As for the difference between phenotypes of the same species caused by this engineering -- so what? Just like differences in farm raised versus wild, frozen versus refrigerated versus fresh etc., none of which are required to be labeled, it's all sold under a name. Some names will have a reputation for good quality and some for being cheap. Put on your big boy pants and shop for this like you shop for every other food item in existence.
You were not. Does the food that you purchase identify the conglomerate which entirely owns the folksy subsidiary whos name appears on the product? Does it identify the wage scale of the workers who gathered, made, and/or packaged it? Do your canned foods even say "lined with BPA?"
You never had that impression. You're merely dragging out a trope of long-disproven economic theory in an attempt to require that a food product include a politically-driven disclosure that the producer does not wish to use.
Then buy a product labeled "GMO Free."
But can you explain why they should have to label it as a GMO product, and more to the point can you explain how that reason relates to a significant property of the item iteself rather than the political considerations that you are raising?
The problem you face is that the FDA cannot identify any significant difference in the item itself. Therefore the FDA cannot compel the labeling that you want. Just as the USDA cannot compel eggs to be labeled as "battery cage eggs," pork to be labeled as "gestation crate tenderloin," etc.
You want to force someone selling a product to label it in a way that will probably be detrimental to their business based upon a political position, or at best objections to a manufacturing process. Yet those do not change the physical characteristics or quality of what you're actually purchasing. Nor is this modification/farming practice illegal (having now obtained approval). So no, it does not need to be labeled any differently.
You are free to seek out products labeled by their proponents as having been made in the manner you want. However, compelled speech violates the freedom of speech as surely as compelled silence. Whether you think it "should" be said does not change the fact of the matter until you show some rational basis for a regulation requiring such labeling.
"I get it. I understand the appeal of a stock car race. It's just exciting, and I'm all for it," he writes. "I just want NASCAR to adapt to the new mainstream. I want the circuit to produce vehicles that could compete in races anywhere in the world, and win. I want the racing series to spin off new tech that will do more with less. For me, as an American mechanical engineer, I hope NASCAR decides to look forward rather than backward."
Do you have a similar problem with open attacks on each of of homosexuality, gay marriage, atheism, secular humanism, and evolution?
Just curious, because I repeatedly see Christians who fully endorse attacking the beliefs of others because, by God, Christians are right and those others are wrong.
But you just said there are no rules. In the real world once I knew where you were I could bomb you and/or the computer hosting your link. Therefore I should be able to walk over to you in the tournament and shoot you in the head. Your poor opsec is your problem, not mine.
You're not saying that there's no rules, you're saying that you'll only obey the rules that you believe should exist. The problem is, I do not have to believe in same rules, or in fact any at all.
You can either agree to mutual rules, cheat, or admit that there are absolutely no rules. What you can't do is agree to rules, violate those rules, and then claim that you're not a cheat.
Yes, keep your advocacy and lobbying where it belongs... at $5000/plate fundraisers where the candidate can essentially ignore you because you've already paid.
Except "2005" was actually February 2007, "legally required" was an executive order issued by then-Governor Rick Perry ("individual liberty-R-us"), and the Texas legislature promptly overrode the executive order in June 2007 so that there never was any "legally required" vaccination for school attendance.
Moderated to +4 informative, yet almost completely wrong on the objectively veribiable information. I think I'll disregard your HPV treatment anecdote as well...
Don't be dense. We're not quite as susceptible to your magnetic personality as you believe. Now step off and voice your opinions somewhere else.
Dude, that totally explains my goatee!