1) Beatings. Obviously, the beatings.
2) Date-rape scanners
3) Illegal search and seizure
4) Increasingly obscene rules about laptop use
5) Sardines get more legroom
6) Increasingly obscene rules about carry-on bags
7) If you live in central USA, it often is faster to drive than to deal with the airport. Particularly if you have to check bags
8) Flights are often late, connections are often missed. Bad if flying alone, horrifying if flying with young kids
9) Flying with other people's young kids (Not that mine are angels, but I suffer from them regardless of venue)
10) Going to go back up to beatings, because that's worth two mentions
Hi, UK resident here. I'd like to state that reasons 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 10 are just reasons to avoid flying to the US.
I rate the best airports to go through, in this order, Singapore-Changi, London-Heathrow and Amsterdam-Schipol. Note none of them are in the United states, personally I rate Bogata-El Dorado better than any American airport. We just don't have the same problems as you, English, Dutch and Singaporean security staff are polite and respectful, we use standard X-rays at Heathrow, the whole belt thingo is a pain but it's over relatively quickly and I've bought trousers with elasticated waists so they don't end up around my ankles. At my last visit to Heathrow, I was airside having an ale withing 15 minutes of arrival. That was checking in, dropping bags and going through security. It took just as long to walk from the aforementioned bar to the gate where my flight was boarding but that is a problem inherent to all large airports. If you do choose to fly I advise flying out of the United States so you only have to go through the process once.
Now onto your other points.
5) Sardines get more legroom
Fly better airlines. I try to avoid American and UK airlines because of this. Singapore has 19" wide seats and 32" pitch on standard economy seats. Many airlines call that premium economy.
8) Flights are often late, connections are often missed. Bad if flying alone, horrifying if flying with young kids
See the above point. Better ATC and better scheduling means fewer flights are late. Also non-budget airlines are better as they aren't cycling their equipment as fast (meaning they aren't scheduling so many flights for the same plane per day).
9) Flying with other people's young kids (Not that mine are angels, but I suffer from them regardless of venue)
This is luck of the draw, so I'll grant you that.
That being said, they tend to put kids up front, so book yourself a seat down the back and away from the bulkhead to minimise your chances.
And the Americans bombed Japanese cities, Coventry (that's in England, for the geographically challenged) had the living shit blown out of it multiple times by ze Germans. It was war.
In the 10 worst bombing campaigns of WWII, only one allied city made the list (London). We were a shit load better at unloading ordinance than they were.
>abuses that you racists and bigots have been guilty of committing
I'm gonna stop you right there. Actual racism (discriminitory practices, unequal pay, violence, etc) has been going down steadily since as long as I can remember.
I'm an Australian who lives in the UK. I've actually seen a huge uptick in racism and racially motivated violence in Australia and the UK in the last few years, since 2010. We didn't have segregation, Jim Crowe laws and what not in the 60's and did away with institutionalised racism long before my grandfather was born (the last vestiges of it, in imperialism, died out in the British Empire around the turn of the 20th century). So compared to 1980's Australia there is a lot more open racism.
It's become socially acceptable to be openly racist now and somehow wrong to point out when someone is being racist (PC, SJW or whatever they'll call you next week). Previously, proper racists had to hide behind closed doors, hence the term closet racist, but now they can create echo chambers where people who oppose them are viciously beaten down, sometimes physically with groups like the EDL (English Defence League) or UPF in Australia.
They began reminding us how "White Males" (now a derogatory term) keep everyone else down. How they're racist and misogynist and the lowest scum to walk the Earth. How they don't deserve to even have an opinion, much less state one
Sorry, but that is just a(n imagined) victim mentality. Oddly enough, you're trying to use the same tactics as those you complain about. White males are still the most privileged group and you only need to look at popular culture to determine that their opinion is still the strongest of all opinions.
Have not heard about too many right-wing riots where they were trying to silence a left-wing speaker.. There does seem to be more violent left-wing thugs than there are right-wing thugs... And you sound like one of those.
EDL, Reclaim Australia, UPF.
As a centrist (centre right actually) I see more right wing groups trying to silence their opposition than left wing groups attempting to do the same. And the right are always more ready to use violence (and then clam the left started it).
As a moderate, I tend to dislike the extreme right more than the extreme left and view the extreme right as more of a threat to a functioning society.
You can change your oil every 10 to 15000 km if you are driving a lot.
Depends on the car, depends on the oil, depends on the conditions. Less so on your driving style.
My stock standard non-turbo 3L BMW petrol using fully synthetic oils tends to last 10-15,000 miles in the UK without sludging. My last car was a 2L turbo modified Nissan Silvia back in Australia, I did the oil on that every 5,000 KM.
Synthetics last longer than mineral oils, engines that get stressed (I.E. highly modified ones) are less tolerant of bad oil and dusty environments like most of Australia tend to overwhelm particulate filters much faster than say, verdant England.
Oil is much cheaper than a new engine though.
This, a hundred times this.
I've never baulked at paying $100 for an oil change when it's $2000+ to get a new engine or an acid bath for the old head.
If you want to know what will be in the new Iphone in 18-24 months, look at what Android has now, the caveat is that only some of what Android has will be permitted.
Pretty sure my old Nexus 4 had wireless charging and that was released in late 2012.
By definition, this is not a mass shooting. A mass shooting, by government definition, is 4 or more killed.
Actually by definition, this is terrorism. It was violence used to make a political statement. That is practically the dictionary definition of terrorism:
terrorism
noun
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
Wait a minute, let me just check something. Oh, he's white. Nevermind. Mass shooting it is.
2015 gun deaths: 13,485 ( Not including suicides. )
Your data seems inaccurate.
Including suicides puts them just about event.
Statistics from this side of the pond (the UK).
Automobile deaths:
1,732 (2015 data)
Firearm deaths:
5 (2014 data).
Now I know the US has a larger population, approximately 4.93 times (65 mil vs 321) so lets adjust those figures rounding up to the nearest whole number.
Automobile deaths: 8,539
Firearm deaths: 25
Oh dear.
Well we're falling considerably short of the ambitious targets the US seems to have set. The thing is, the only real factor automobile and firearm deaths have in common is that they're entirely preventable, so instead of saying that the number of firearm deaths are OK because they dont exceed the number of automobile deaths is somewhat foolish. Realistically you've got 48,577 preventable deaths (not including suicides because they are quite difficult to prevent). Of course I know not all of them are easily preventable, but you can at least get down to our level.
Where firearms and automobiles differ is that a firearm's purpose is to kill where as vehicular deaths are an unfortunate side effect, a cars main purpose is transportation. Its actually very hard to kill with a car because 1. modern safety features favour the pedestrian and 2. the occupants are just as likely to be injured, making them a terrible weapon. Also we use our cars for several hours every day, usage time compared to injuries deaths makes cars look quite safe, the same cannot be said of firearms.
Now I'm actually in favour of recreational use of firearms. When handled safely they present negligible danger, but in the UK this means having the training to use a firearm, a safe place to use it and a safe place to store it (which to us, is just common sense). You can get all three of these things by joining a gun club. However, saying more people are killed in car accidents as a defence for the number of gun deaths is only demonstrating that you don't grasp the basic differences between firearms and cars, if anything that is an argument that you should not be permitted to carry nothing more dangerous than a teaspoon.
It's like they took a Model S and then stretched it vertically a bit and called it a SUV. (And added FALCON DOORS!!) To most normal people that's not a SUV.
I love Tesla, but the rationale of the Model X has always been a mystery to me.
Because SUV is a word without a definition. Most SUV's are just jacked up hatchbacks or wagons with body kits. Almost none of them are suitable to go offroad and most don't even have greater ground clearance than their hatch/wagon counterparts. You can pretty much call anything an SUV as long as you've made it look slightly bigger and a lot uglier.
There are good reasons us motoring enthusiasts go to great lengths to avoid having proper 4x4's thrown in with SUV's. A 4x4 like a Hilux or Patrol can be taken pretty far off road where as a Mum-Tank SUV like a Kuga or X5 will struggle with a gentle grassy slope.
This has less to do with Facebook and more with what happens when you let imaginary friends rule your life.
Actually it has more to do with a corrupt despotism. The excuse of religion is just that, an excuse. Its a control, something to keep the rabble in line. Religion isn't called the opiate of the masses for nothing.
Said sky faerie may be imaginary, but the men using him (or her) to maintain their power are quite real.
In dollars per hours played, Legos are dirt cheap.
I have 3 kids, boys & girls.
I count about 10000 hours total played.
Mostly emergent gameplay with existing bricks, not buying & assemblying new sets.
Also in longevity. I received my first Lego sets in the late 80's... My nephew will get those same pieces sometime after 2020. Other brick sets just weren't built with the same quality.
Uber will eventually die on its own, because it is unsustainable.
As soon as everyone realizes that fact that most Uber drivers actually LOSE MONEY when you figure in the low rates they pay people combined with the total cost of driving for them (insurance, gas, auto maintenance, etc) most honest figures come up with either less than minimum wages or you are actually losing money on the deal.
Uber is a scam.
It doesn't matter that Uber drivers are losing money, there are still enough starry eyed suckers who haven't figured out its a losing proposition. After they're gone you've still got the desperate and those who couldn't get a job at McDonalds.
Further more, most Uber users couldn't care less that their driver is losing money because they're so enamoured with the idea of Uber and their false outrage at the taxi industry.
However, Uber is losing money hand over fist and that is what will drag them down. Uber needs to be put out of it's misery, taking the company out back and shooting it now would be a mercy.
I take it you're American and are unfamiliar with the mindset of the British people. You see, the British are a stoic lot, Londoners especially. These people went through the Blitz and the Troubles without surrendering to fear so a few knife wielding nutters wont do a bleeding thing. I guarantee you, the world will run out of nutters long before the British run out of courage. The attacks have only galvanised the British and we're determined to bloody well carry on.
The British people are not demanding that something be done. Quite the contrary, we want the government to stop fucking up the country. However, the conservatives are reeling from their recent election quagmire, so they're responding in the only way conservatives know how, by trying to make stupid laws that no-one wants.
Finally, I'm going to be in London next weekend catching up with mates. We may even end up in the Borough Market (Southbank is easy for us to get to) We've been planning this for weeks and we're bloody well not going to change our plans for the sake of some upset tarts.
>"My country is single payer, so we will help you pay for it at a price that is acceptable to both parties."
You just probably won't have any company ever actually invent any drugs in your country because there is no money to pay for the development.
Guess again.
From the fine article:
The study started in 2013 and is funded by philanthropies; the drugmakerâ(TM)s [Merek] only role was to supply the drug.
So it seems your User pays for everything, then we charge the government to pay for it again system is an utter failure. Merek would never have bothered with this drug if the tests were not conducted by someone else.
The overwhelming majority of life saving treatments are developed using public money. There's no money in curing cancer, especially not when hardness pills and placebo vitamins are so profitable (yes, thats where the majority of private R&D goes, so-called "lifestyle" drugs).
The UK's NHS is not perfect, but here you get the treatment you need, not billed for tests and drugs you dont need.
In other words, WAAAAHHHHHH, someone said something bad about my favourite thing
FTFY, because your entire post sounds like spoilt milk.
If you don't think Apple is also selling your data, I have a bride to sell you with very nice views of the bay.
Google is different only in the fact that they give you a reasonable demonstration that the data they sell is anonymised. Sure, Apple automatically deletes the data in six months, but that's 5 months and 30 days after they've sold it on, old data isn't worth anything. It doesn't matter if it's Googles, Amazons or anyone elses. Google also offers opt-outs to almost everything and more often than not, data collection is opt-in for their services. Apple's SOP is "We'll do what we like and you'll enjoy it, even if we dont use lube".
Also, Apple are the kings of using weasel words. Sure the data is deleted from Apple servers,
The Tories gambled and lost; they misread the situation, but I am not convinced that this is Theresa May's fault - she is in many ways one of the few good Conservatives, and I like her, but she is surrounded by the old-style 'nasty tories', as she once called them; the kind satirised in 'The New Statesman' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Statesman).
I agree with you about May but that was the May before she became PM. After that she became one of the nasty 'old style Tories'. The same thing happened to Malcolm Turnbull in Australia, he was a forward thinking "progressive" conservative until he gained power. Ultimately the party powerbrokers who were old school conservative broke him and he became a shadow of his former self. The same thing is happening to T-May, after the fall of Cameron the nasty old-style Tories saw an opportunity to take back the Conservative party, succeeded and set to work destroying any type of progressive attitude. If T-May cant take the Tory party in hand by the next election, Corbyn may very well be the next PM.
Also, supporting fox hunting during an election is just plain stupid. Sure it's the kind of stupidity you can get away with when an election is 2 years away, but not when you've just called a snap election to try to increase your majority.
Yes but do you know why Labour had a 25 point deficit? Jeremy Corbyn.
Jeremy Corbyn is fucking useless. His only positive point was that his opponent in this election turned out to be even more fucking useless.
I dont think highly of Corbyn (nor May, but I digress) but like or hate him, he ran a stellar campaign. He managed to turn the labour party from totally unelectable to a serious threat in less than 2 months. Even though he lost, his campaign will be added to the textbooks for how well it was run.
Corbyn, unlike may managed to set, stick to and send out a clear message (For the many, not the few, in case you forgot) where as May floundered, flip-flopped and fannied about. Honestly, she spent too much time trying to sound like Margret Thatcher instead of showing us she was a leader. The discontent with the SNP in Scotland is the only reason he's not PM right now. The Tories rested on their laurels and didn't take Corbyn seriously, now they're paying for it.
Two good things came out of this election.
1. Neither the Tories or Labour get to rule by fiat.
2. UKIP were wiped out.
If the Harvard people are sincerely interested in protecting society from harm,
Who said that Harvard was trying to protect society from harm.
Its quite obvious here Harvard is only trying to protect Harvard from harm.
More people apply to Harvard than places that are available at Harvard because Harvard is a prestigious school. Along with the ability to pick and choose students, this means they have a reputation to uphold.
Ah, the classic reductionist, "you have free speech no matter what we do to you in retaliation for it as long as you were able to say it in the first place" anti-free speech canard.
Ah, the classic "I like to pretend that free speech protects me from criticism and consequences of that speech" canard. You can say racists things in Spanish Harlem... but don't be surprised when someone punches you for it.
The saddest thing about people like you is that you think self-entitled arseholes are entitled to more protection than anyone else.
Yup...so much for colleges being a safe place for free thought, and the ability to vocalize and exchange ideas...even *controversial* ones.
Sigh, one of the biggest myths about free speech is that just because you're allowed to say it does not mean that we have to listen and silently accept what you've said.
If you say something stupid, there is nothing stopping people calling you stupid for saying it.
This isn't an impingement on free speech, this isn't a suppression of speech, it's Harvard saying that they don't want these people in the Harvard club.
Also, not every stupid thing is controversial, not everything that generates controversy is worthy of debate. These "gentlemen" were not making light of a sensitive subject, they were mocking sexual assault. Whilst legal, its extremerly distasteful and an organisation like Harvard who has a reputation to uphold has every right to uphold it in this fashion.
And now today...PC
Here you demonstrate you have no point.
What is now called "PC" was once, when I was a wee lad, called not being an arsehole.
"PC" has lost its meaning and become a byword for "something I don't like, but cant form a rational argument against".
The main problem with the PC crowd is that they stand up for the rights of people to be offensive, but want anyone who would tell them to shut up and fuck off because we're sick of their shit to remain silent and agree with the offensive. Ironically, they've become the "Political Correctness gone made"
Canada did the exact same thing (privatize to an NGO) in 1996.
Nav Canada, the NGO that operates Canada's air traffic control, has won three IATA Eagle Awards for Best Air Traffic Controller since 2001. It also closely coordinates with the existing FAA ATC system as the Canadian and US airspace are extremely interrelated (perhaps the most so in the world).
Canada is one of about 50 countries that have gone this route (Britain, Germany, Australia and New Zealand are among the countries that have done so). Nav Canada even sells their system (Australia runs on it) - we could potentially just buy a solution.
That is a bit of a misnomer, the operation of ATC has been privatised, but not the organisations that control it. For Australia Air Services Australia (government owned entity) is in control of licensing controllers and setting policy.
No developed nation that I know of lets airlines run the ATC (in Oz and the UK, ATC is run by the corporation controlling the airport) as that would be foolhardy and quite possibly dangerous because they will put profit above safety.
I might actually have a credit card survive until its expiration date without having to get a new one. Probably the first time in a decade if that manages to happen.
That indicates you've been using it wrong.
I only use my cards in secure machines, meaning machines the owners take a modicum of care to protect. Anywhere I don't trust emphatically receives cash.
Just like your penis, if you stick your card into all and sundry without any care what so ever., don't be surprised when it ends up regularly becoming a source of crippling pain.
Wonder Woman was far from the first good DC movie. People under 30 often forget that the 80's and early 90's were the golden age of DC films with Superman and Batman being some of the biggest blockbusters of the day. Even today, none of the Marvel or DC villains compare to Danny DeVito's Penguin. DC's recent moves weren't that bad, but the couldn't capture the audience the way the old ones could.
This was the time where Marvel and Stan Lee were steadfastly refusing to sell their comics to the movie studios despite quite good offers being made. I think if they had of made Marvel movies in the 80's, the ones that came in the 00's would not have been as well received.
' If rich old people are willing to pay for young blood, then some of that money can go to the donors. The market can solve this."
This screams 'i have never had any resources of my own, so its ok to just take someone else's'
OK, then economies of scale will make it better, Instead of paying western teens megabucks for a donation of blood, we'll farm it out to 3rd world nations where we can pay them pennies on the pint. Then sell it to rich, gullible fools for thousands. Just make sure you superimpose "Packaged and Processed in the USA" over the stars and stripes and you're golden. No-one will even question the blood farms in Vietnam and Bangladesh.
Slashdot Mirror
1) Beatings. Obviously, the beatings.
2) Date-rape scanners
3) Illegal search and seizure
4) Increasingly obscene rules about laptop use
5) Sardines get more legroom
6) Increasingly obscene rules about carry-on bags
7) If you live in central USA, it often is faster to drive than to deal with the airport. Particularly if you have to check bags
8) Flights are often late, connections are often missed. Bad if flying alone, horrifying if flying with young kids
9) Flying with other people's young kids (Not that mine are angels, but I suffer from them regardless of venue)
10) Going to go back up to beatings, because that's worth two mentions
Hi, UK resident here. I'd like to state that reasons 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 10 are just reasons to avoid flying to the US.
I rate the best airports to go through, in this order, Singapore-Changi, London-Heathrow and Amsterdam-Schipol. Note none of them are in the United states, personally I rate Bogata-El Dorado better than any American airport. We just don't have the same problems as you, English, Dutch and Singaporean security staff are polite and respectful, we use standard X-rays at Heathrow, the whole belt thingo is a pain but it's over relatively quickly and I've bought trousers with elasticated waists so they don't end up around my ankles. At my last visit to Heathrow, I was airside having an ale withing 15 minutes of arrival. That was checking in, dropping bags and going through security. It took just as long to walk from the aforementioned bar to the gate where my flight was boarding but that is a problem inherent to all large airports. If you do choose to fly I advise flying out of the United States so you only have to go through the process once.
Now onto your other points.
5) Sardines get more legroom
Fly better airlines. I try to avoid American and UK airlines because of this. Singapore has 19" wide seats and 32" pitch on standard economy seats. Many airlines call that premium economy.
8) Flights are often late, connections are often missed. Bad if flying alone, horrifying if flying with young kids
See the above point. Better ATC and better scheduling means fewer flights are late. Also non-budget airlines are better as they aren't cycling their equipment as fast (meaning they aren't scheduling so many flights for the same plane per day).
9) Flying with other people's young kids (Not that mine are angels, but I suffer from them regardless of venue)
This is luck of the draw, so I'll grant you that.
That being said, they tend to put kids up front, so book yourself a seat down the back and away from the bulkhead to minimise your chances.
Oh, and one more thing. The argument people ALWAYS use against the USA. "We firebombed their cities."
Fun fact: Japan firebombed the shit out of Chinese civilians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And the Americans bombed Japanese cities, Coventry (that's in England, for the geographically challenged) had the living shit blown out of it multiple times by ze Germans. It was war. In the 10 worst bombing campaigns of WWII, only one allied city made the list (London). We were a shit load better at unloading ordinance than they were.
>abuses that you racists and bigots have been guilty of committing
I'm gonna stop you right there. Actual racism (discriminitory practices, unequal pay, violence, etc) has been going down steadily since as long as I can remember.
I'm an Australian who lives in the UK. I've actually seen a huge uptick in racism and racially motivated violence in Australia and the UK in the last few years, since 2010. We didn't have segregation, Jim Crowe laws and what not in the 60's and did away with institutionalised racism long before my grandfather was born (the last vestiges of it, in imperialism, died out in the British Empire around the turn of the 20th century). So compared to 1980's Australia there is a lot more open racism.
It's become socially acceptable to be openly racist now and somehow wrong to point out when someone is being racist (PC, SJW or whatever they'll call you next week). Previously, proper racists had to hide behind closed doors, hence the term closet racist, but now they can create echo chambers where people who oppose them are viciously beaten down, sometimes physically with groups like the EDL (English Defence League) or UPF in Australia.
They began reminding us how "White Males" (now a derogatory term) keep everyone else down. How they're racist and misogynist and the lowest scum to walk the Earth. How they don't deserve to even have an opinion, much less state one
Sorry, but that is just a(n imagined) victim mentality. Oddly enough, you're trying to use the same tactics as those you complain about. White males are still the most privileged group and you only need to look at popular culture to determine that their opinion is still the strongest of all opinions.
Have not heard about too many right-wing riots where they were trying to silence a left-wing speaker.. There does seem to be more violent left-wing thugs than there are right-wing thugs... And you sound like one of those.
EDL, Reclaim Australia, UPF.
As a centrist (centre right actually) I see more right wing groups trying to silence their opposition than left wing groups attempting to do the same. And the right are always more ready to use violence (and then clam the left started it).
As a moderate, I tend to dislike the extreme right more than the extreme left and view the extreme right as more of a threat to a functioning society.
You can change your oil every 10 to 15000 km if you are driving a lot.
Depends on the car, depends on the oil, depends on the conditions. Less so on your driving style.
My stock standard non-turbo 3L BMW petrol using fully synthetic oils tends to last 10-15,000 miles in the UK without sludging. My last car was a 2L turbo modified Nissan Silvia back in Australia, I did the oil on that every 5,000 KM.
Synthetics last longer than mineral oils, engines that get stressed (I.E. highly modified ones) are less tolerant of bad oil and dusty environments like most of Australia tend to overwhelm particulate filters much faster than say, verdant England.
Oil is much cheaper than a new engine though.
This, a hundred times this.
I've never baulked at paying $100 for an oil change when it's $2000+ to get a new engine or an acid bath for the old head.
Basically my theory holds.
If you want to know what will be in the new Iphone in 18-24 months, look at what Android has now, the caveat is that only some of what Android has will be permitted.
Pretty sure my old Nexus 4 had wireless charging and that was released in late 2012.
By definition, this is not a mass shooting. A mass shooting, by government definition, is 4 or more killed.
Actually by definition, this is terrorism. It was violence used to make a political statement. That is practically the dictionary definition of terrorism:
terrorism
noun
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
Wait a minute, let me just check something. Oh, he's white. Nevermind. Mass shooting it is.
2015 vehicle deaths: 35,092.
2015 gun deaths: 13,485 ( Not including suicides. )
Your data seems inaccurate.
Including suicides puts them just about event.
Statistics from this side of the pond (the UK).
Automobile deaths:
1,732 (2015 data)
Firearm deaths:
5 (2014 data).
Now I know the US has a larger population, approximately 4.93 times (65 mil vs 321) so lets adjust those figures rounding up to the nearest whole number.
Automobile deaths: 8,539
Firearm deaths: 25
Oh dear.
Well we're falling considerably short of the ambitious targets the US seems to have set. The thing is, the only real factor automobile and firearm deaths have in common is that they're entirely preventable, so instead of saying that the number of firearm deaths are OK because they dont exceed the number of automobile deaths is somewhat foolish. Realistically you've got 48,577 preventable deaths (not including suicides because they are quite difficult to prevent). Of course I know not all of them are easily preventable, but you can at least get down to our level.
Where firearms and automobiles differ is that a firearm's purpose is to kill where as vehicular deaths are an unfortunate side effect, a cars main purpose is transportation. Its actually very hard to kill with a car because 1. modern safety features favour the pedestrian and 2. the occupants are just as likely to be injured, making them a terrible weapon. Also we use our cars for several hours every day, usage time compared to injuries deaths makes cars look quite safe, the same cannot be said of firearms.
Now I'm actually in favour of recreational use of firearms. When handled safely they present negligible danger, but in the UK this means having the training to use a firearm, a safe place to use it and a safe place to store it (which to us, is just common sense). You can get all three of these things by joining a gun club. However, saying more people are killed in car accidents as a defence for the number of gun deaths is only demonstrating that you don't grasp the basic differences between firearms and cars, if anything that is an argument that you should not be permitted to carry nothing more dangerous than a teaspoon.
It's like they took a Model S and then stretched it vertically a bit and called it a SUV. (And added FALCON DOORS!!) To most normal people that's not a SUV.
I love Tesla, but the rationale of the Model X has always been a mystery to me.
Because SUV is a word without a definition. Most SUV's are just jacked up hatchbacks or wagons with body kits. Almost none of them are suitable to go offroad and most don't even have greater ground clearance than their hatch/wagon counterparts. You can pretty much call anything an SUV as long as you've made it look slightly bigger and a lot uglier.
There are good reasons us motoring enthusiasts go to great lengths to avoid having proper 4x4's thrown in with SUV's. A 4x4 like a Hilux or Patrol can be taken pretty far off road where as a Mum-Tank SUV like a Kuga or X5 will struggle with a gentle grassy slope.
This has less to do with Facebook and more with what happens when you let imaginary friends rule your life.
Actually it has more to do with a corrupt despotism. The excuse of religion is just that, an excuse. Its a control, something to keep the rabble in line. Religion isn't called the opiate of the masses for nothing.
Said sky faerie may be imaginary, but the men using him (or her) to maintain their power are quite real.
In dollars per hours played, Legos are dirt cheap.
I have 3 kids, boys & girls.
I count about 10000 hours total played.
Mostly emergent gameplay with existing bricks, not buying & assemblying new sets.
Also in longevity. I received my first Lego sets in the late 80's... My nephew will get those same pieces sometime after 2020. Other brick sets just weren't built with the same quality.
Uber will eventually die on its own, because it is unsustainable.
As soon as everyone realizes that fact that most Uber drivers actually LOSE MONEY when you figure in the low rates they pay people combined with the total cost of driving for them (insurance, gas, auto maintenance, etc) most honest figures come up with either less than minimum wages or you are actually losing money on the deal.
Uber is a scam.
It doesn't matter that Uber drivers are losing money, there are still enough starry eyed suckers who haven't figured out its a losing proposition. After they're gone you've still got the desperate and those who couldn't get a job at McDonalds.
Further more, most Uber users couldn't care less that their driver is losing money because they're so enamoured with the idea of Uber and their false outrage at the taxi industry.
However, Uber is losing money hand over fist and that is what will drag them down. Uber needs to be put out of it's misery, taking the company out back and shooting it now would be a mercy.
The public are afraid.
This is incorrect.
I take it you're American and are unfamiliar with the mindset of the British people. You see, the British are a stoic lot, Londoners especially. These people went through the Blitz and the Troubles without surrendering to fear so a few knife wielding nutters wont do a bleeding thing. I guarantee you, the world will run out of nutters long before the British run out of courage. The attacks have only galvanised the British and we're determined to bloody well carry on.
The British people are not demanding that something be done. Quite the contrary, we want the government to stop fucking up the country. However, the conservatives are reeling from their recent election quagmire, so they're responding in the only way conservatives know how, by trying to make stupid laws that no-one wants.
Finally, I'm going to be in London next weekend catching up with mates. We may even end up in the Borough Market (Southbank is easy for us to get to) We've been planning this for weeks and we're bloody well not going to change our plans for the sake of some upset tarts.
>"My country is single payer, so we will help you pay for it at a price that is acceptable to both parties."
You just probably won't have any company ever actually invent any drugs in your country because there is no money to pay for the development.
Guess again.
From the fine article:
The study started in 2013 and is funded by philanthropies; the drugmakerâ(TM)s [Merek] only role was to supply the drug.
So it seems your User pays for everything, then we charge the government to pay for it again system is an utter failure. Merek would never have bothered with this drug if the tests were not conducted by someone else.
The overwhelming majority of life saving treatments are developed using public money. There's no money in curing cancer, especially not when hardness pills and placebo vitamins are so profitable (yes, thats where the majority of private R&D goes, so-called "lifestyle" drugs).
The UK's NHS is not perfect, but here you get the treatment you need, not billed for tests and drugs you dont need.
FTFY, because your entire post sounds like spoilt milk.
If you don't think Apple is also selling your data, I have a bride to sell you with very nice views of the bay.
Google is different only in the fact that they give you a reasonable demonstration that the data they sell is anonymised. Sure, Apple automatically deletes the data in six months, but that's 5 months and 30 days after they've sold it on, old data isn't worth anything. It doesn't matter if it's Googles, Amazons or anyone elses. Google also offers opt-outs to almost everything and more often than not, data collection is opt-in for their services. Apple's SOP is "We'll do what we like and you'll enjoy it, even if we dont use lube".
Also, Apple are the kings of using weasel words. Sure the data is deleted from Apple servers,
The Tories gambled and lost; they misread the situation, but I am not convinced that this is Theresa May's fault - she is in many ways one of the few good Conservatives, and I like her, but she is surrounded by the old-style 'nasty tories', as she once called them; the kind satirised in 'The New Statesman' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Statesman).
I agree with you about May but that was the May before she became PM. After that she became one of the nasty 'old style Tories'. The same thing happened to Malcolm Turnbull in Australia, he was a forward thinking "progressive" conservative until he gained power. Ultimately the party powerbrokers who were old school conservative broke him and he became a shadow of his former self. The same thing is happening to T-May, after the fall of Cameron the nasty old-style Tories saw an opportunity to take back the Conservative party, succeeded and set to work destroying any type of progressive attitude. If T-May cant take the Tory party in hand by the next election, Corbyn may very well be the next PM.
Also, supporting fox hunting during an election is just plain stupid. Sure it's the kind of stupidity you can get away with when an election is 2 years away, but not when you've just called a snap election to try to increase your majority.
Yes but do you know why Labour had a 25 point deficit? Jeremy Corbyn.
Jeremy Corbyn is fucking useless. His only positive point was that his opponent in this election turned out to be even more fucking useless.
I dont think highly of Corbyn (nor May, but I digress) but like or hate him, he ran a stellar campaign. He managed to turn the labour party from totally unelectable to a serious threat in less than 2 months. Even though he lost, his campaign will be added to the textbooks for how well it was run.
Corbyn, unlike may managed to set, stick to and send out a clear message (For the many, not the few, in case you forgot) where as May floundered, flip-flopped and fannied about. Honestly, she spent too much time trying to sound like Margret Thatcher instead of showing us she was a leader. The discontent with the SNP in Scotland is the only reason he's not PM right now. The Tories rested on their laurels and didn't take Corbyn seriously, now they're paying for it.
Two good things came out of this election.
1. Neither the Tories or Labour get to rule by fiat.
2. UKIP were wiped out.
You must think WE'RE retarded.
Well, not to put too fine a point on it... but yes.
If the Harvard people are sincerely interested in protecting society from harm,
Who said that Harvard was trying to protect society from harm.
Its quite obvious here Harvard is only trying to protect Harvard from harm.
More people apply to Harvard than places that are available at Harvard because Harvard is a prestigious school. Along with the ability to pick and choose students, this means they have a reputation to uphold.
Ah, the classic reductionist, "you have free speech no matter what we do to you in retaliation for it as long as you were able to say it in the first place" anti-free speech canard.
Ah, the classic "I like to pretend that free speech protects me from criticism and consequences of that speech" canard. You can say racists things in Spanish Harlem... but don't be surprised when someone punches you for it.
The saddest thing about people like you is that you think self-entitled arseholes are entitled to more protection than anyone else.
Yup...so much for colleges being a safe place for free thought, and the ability to vocalize and exchange ideas...even *controversial* ones.
Sigh, one of the biggest myths about free speech is that just because you're allowed to say it does not mean that we have to listen and silently accept what you've said.
If you say something stupid, there is nothing stopping people calling you stupid for saying it.
This isn't an impingement on free speech, this isn't a suppression of speech, it's Harvard saying that they don't want these people in the Harvard club.
Also, not every stupid thing is controversial, not everything that generates controversy is worthy of debate. These "gentlemen" were not making light of a sensitive subject, they were mocking sexual assault. Whilst legal, its extremerly distasteful and an organisation like Harvard who has a reputation to uphold has every right to uphold it in this fashion.
Here you demonstrate you have no point.
What is now called "PC" was once, when I was a wee lad, called not being an arsehole.
"PC" has lost its meaning and become a byword for "something I don't like, but cant form a rational argument against".
The main problem with the PC crowd is that they stand up for the rights of people to be offensive, but want anyone who would tell them to shut up and fuck off because we're sick of their shit to remain silent and agree with the offensive. Ironically, they've become the "Political Correctness gone made"
Canada did the exact same thing (privatize to an NGO) in 1996.
Nav Canada, the NGO that operates Canada's air traffic control, has won three IATA Eagle Awards for Best Air Traffic Controller since 2001. It also closely coordinates with the existing FAA ATC system as the Canadian and US airspace are extremely interrelated (perhaps the most so in the world).
Canada is one of about 50 countries that have gone this route (Britain, Germany, Australia and New Zealand are among the countries that have done so). Nav Canada even sells their system (Australia runs on it) - we could potentially just buy a solution.
That is a bit of a misnomer, the operation of ATC has been privatised, but not the organisations that control it. For Australia Air Services Australia (government owned entity) is in control of licensing controllers and setting policy.
No developed nation that I know of lets airlines run the ATC (in Oz and the UK, ATC is run by the corporation controlling the airport) as that would be foolhardy and quite possibly dangerous because they will put profit above safety.
I might actually have a credit card survive until its expiration date without having to get a new one. Probably the first time in a decade if that manages to happen.
That indicates you've been using it wrong.
I only use my cards in secure machines, meaning machines the owners take a modicum of care to protect. Anywhere I don't trust emphatically receives cash.
Just like your penis, if you stick your card into all and sundry without any care what so ever., don't be surprised when it ends up regularly becoming a source of crippling pain.
So, Wonder Woman may be DC's first 'good' movie.
Wonder Woman was far from the first good DC movie. People under 30 often forget that the 80's and early 90's were the golden age of DC films with Superman and Batman being some of the biggest blockbusters of the day. Even today, none of the Marvel or DC villains compare to Danny DeVito's Penguin. DC's recent moves weren't that bad, but the couldn't capture the audience the way the old ones could.
This was the time where Marvel and Stan Lee were steadfastly refusing to sell their comics to the movie studios despite quite good offers being made. I think if they had of made Marvel movies in the 80's, the ones that came in the 00's would not have been as well received.
Also not buying the "feminist agenda" crap.
' If rich old people are willing to pay for young blood, then some of that money can go to the donors. The market can solve this."
This screams 'i have never had any resources of my own, so its ok to just take someone else's'
OK, then economies of scale will make it better, Instead of paying western teens megabucks for a donation of blood, we'll farm it out to 3rd world nations where we can pay them pennies on the pint. Then sell it to rich, gullible fools for thousands. Just make sure you superimpose "Packaged and Processed in the USA" over the stars and stripes and you're golden. No-one will even question the blood farms in Vietnam and Bangladesh.
We are responsible capitalists gentlemen.