English doesn't have grammatical rules; it is an open language. All you could do is catalog known grammatical constructions, or write a style guide with your suggestions.
Grammar nazis are idiots who don't comprehend the basics of the language; they don't even know where they think rules come from!
Those idiots are gonna write some hate mail. There is no way to prevent it. They're not willing enough to read to ever find out that their teachers overstated the "rules."
When a big budget movie has "alright" acting, that is a face-first acting flop. They have a whole team of people, before, during, and after, spending millions of dollars conspiring to make that acting look awesome.
A) You may find that people under age 25 who received a student loan had their parents signature in multiple places, because you have to disclose family income. If not, then they signed other forms claiming to be an orphan or something.
B) If they're still 17 and were admitted to the school and were given the loan without any parental approval, and they drop all their classes after the cutoff date for the term, they may indeed be able to challenge enforcement of the charges for that term. But obviously any classes they received credit for they'll still have to pay for.
But they almost certainly filled out a form that required a parent signature.
I believe from the very beginning, Facebook's business social model was and continues to be mostly illegal. In the US, minors can't sign contracts. Any contract with a minor is considered 'null and void'. Therefore minors can not agree to any ELU (end user license agreement). Thus any data collect by the activity of a minor is illegally obtained.
This is "stupidly wrong and wouldn't survive the first page of search results if you bothered to check before making the claim."
In the US, minors can enter into contracts. By signing them. However, contract terms can't generally be enforced against minors. But they are still financially responsible for any goods or services they receive under the contract.
The net result is that minors can cancel a contract at any time, regardless of the details of the contract, and they don't owe you anything at all if they return the goods, or if the service wasn't rendered for whatever reason including that their parents didn't let them finish doing it. So it is a really bad idea to engage in contracts with minors.
And unless you're a lawyer, never move forwards to "thus." Those will always be wrong. Find out what lawyers say about it, choose one of those things, and repeat it. That's the only way to move from "words about the law" to "implications thereof."
What a shame. You're putting yourself in the position of arguing without context.
The wrong answers being discussed were already obviously wrong, and did have catastrophic consequences. The point was, we do the right thing once we see the catastrophe, even though it would have been much easier to prevent than it was to stop. Still, we'll pay that extra price to have the results clearly weighed.
You're not falling unless you're the smaller of multiple mass localizations that are near enough to cause relative motion.
The attempted pendanticisms involved in flying through space will never materialize when inspected. It feels to the false pedants like there would be something there, but there isn't; "fly" was never a narrowly defined technical jargon word in the first place. Neither was "falling."
Why would you intentionally choose a dishonest fantasy if you know you're choosing between fantasies? Why not just choose a fantasy that is good enough that it can admit to being a fantasy?
Scientists don't believe in anything. Feynman talks about this at length in his memoirs; it isn't that they have a different set of beliefs, it is that they're people who are comfortable not knowing. The type of questions that religion asks aren't "wrong," they're just things that don't have clear answers. And scientists are usually people who can accept not knowing, without feeling obligated to believe in specific answers.
If you're stuck on for/against, you already do believe in something, but you might not have any idea what it is or why you believe in it. But it sure as fuck isn't science!
It gets even worse if you ask two classical physicists to explain the mechanism behind flight.
There are bunch of different opinions, a bunch of contradictory explanations, and a wide variety of formulas that all predict the same flight behavior, but totally disagree on the processes.
The attempted pedanticisms that fall out are truly hilarious.
If you believe in "hard science" then you've already rejected science; you can't believe in science. And people who others would accuse of believing in science would actually have no beliefs at all, if it was true.
Science is actually a formal process, not a belief system.
Also, why are you starting from the assumption that the world has to have an explanation? Maybe there is simply no explanation. It may also be that science doesn't attempt to explain anything, it is just a process that moves forwards regardless of if you understood it or not.
It is the exact same sort of logical error that religionists make when they say, "If you don't believe in my God, you must believe in my Devil!"
OTOH, if it was mandated in Europe, a year later this same post would still be showing up.
Europe isn't a country and doesn't have a constitution, and yet you have rules that your governments are required to implement. Your system of government is such that you can't make broad statements about what changes you might see in the future; you could have nearly any rules in the future, without even having to change the system.
If there is a point or not is something you'll have to wait until they tell you to know. You don't even have freedom of speech.
It all sounds good, untiiiil you realize that most US States have a "ballot measure" system; including Michigan.
Once you find out that the Ebil Gubermint is easily over-ruled directly by the voters on a per-issue basis at the State level, and that license plates are done at the State level, then you can realize that it is stupid to think the State could mandate the use of something like this; or that they would even try.
Obviously, the targets are politically-conservative investors, and the only real product is the investment instrument itself.
If the basic purpose of the device is not clearly and entirely safety-related, then it isn't going to be mandated. Any proposals for mandated tracking will be bundled with safety equipment; not with the vehicle licensing.
The problem with the conspiracy theorists isn't their paranoia or vigilance, it is simply their persistent lack of critical thinking about the problems they worry about.
Slashdot Mirror
Ugga wugga wugga? Ugga ugga! Wugga ugga ugga, ugga wugga, ugga. UGGA GROG! GROG WUGGA UGGA!!!
English doesn't have grammatical rules; it is an open language. All you could do is catalog known grammatical constructions, or write a style guide with your suggestions.
Grammar nazis are idiots who don't comprehend the basics of the language; they don't even know where they think rules come from!
Those idiots are gonna write some hate mail. There is no way to prevent it. They're not willing enough to read to ever find out that their teachers overstated the "rules."
No, in Hawaii you have to pretend to like it just to stay alive
The acting was alright.
When a big budget movie has "alright" acting, that is a face-first acting flop. They have a whole team of people, before, during, and after, spending millions of dollars conspiring to make that acting look awesome.
LOL you'd wet yourself for sure if it happened to you
Presenting a choice might confuse the poor consumer, oops I meant, User.
He doesn't even read briefings.
If it wasn't on Fox News, he doesn't even know it is happening. And even if it was, he knows as much about what happened as any other viewer.
Well, in my State people are smarter than that. Not individually, perhaps, but as a group they do much better.
Even in Michigan people aren't that stupid.
So take heart, you won't be the only one voting!
Nature presents no examples of "all" or "nothing."
Don't forget to include some ideas with your words next time. It shouldn't be that hard, you didn't manage very many words.
Allegedly.
I think most parents do let their kids play with their wallets.
A) You may find that people under age 25 who received a student loan had their parents signature in multiple places, because you have to disclose family income. If not, then they signed other forms claiming to be an orphan or something.
B) If they're still 17 and were admitted to the school and were given the loan without any parental approval, and they drop all their classes after the cutoff date for the term, they may indeed be able to challenge enforcement of the charges for that term. But obviously any classes they received credit for they'll still have to pay for.
But they almost certainly filled out a form that required a parent signature.
I believe from the very beginning, Facebook's business social model was and continues to be mostly illegal. In the US, minors can't sign contracts. Any contract with a minor is considered 'null and void'. Therefore minors can not agree to any ELU (end user license agreement). Thus any data collect by the activity of a minor is illegally obtained.
This is "stupidly wrong and wouldn't survive the first page of search results if you bothered to check before making the claim."
In the US, minors can enter into contracts. By signing them. However, contract terms can't generally be enforced against minors. But they are still financially responsible for any goods or services they receive under the contract.
The net result is that minors can cancel a contract at any time, regardless of the details of the contract, and they don't owe you anything at all if they return the goods, or if the service wasn't rendered for whatever reason including that their parents didn't let them finish doing it. So it is a really bad idea to engage in contracts with minors.
And unless you're a lawyer, never move forwards to "thus." Those will always be wrong. Find out what lawyers say about it, choose one of those things, and repeat it. That's the only way to move from "words about the law" to "implications thereof."
You never did learn about the 1930s, did you?
What a shame. You're putting yourself in the position of arguing without context.
The wrong answers being discussed were already obviously wrong, and did have catastrophic consequences. The point was, we do the right thing once we see the catastrophe, even though it would have been much easier to prevent than it was to stop. Still, we'll pay that extra price to have the results clearly weighed.
You're not falling unless you're the smaller of multiple mass localizations that are near enough to cause relative motion.
The attempted pendanticisms involved in flying through space will never materialize when inspected. It feels to the false pedants like there would be something there, but there isn't; "fly" was never a narrowly defined technical jargon word in the first place. Neither was "falling."
Why would you intentionally choose a dishonest fantasy if you know you're choosing between fantasies? Why not just choose a fantasy that is good enough that it can admit to being a fantasy?
Scientists don't believe in anything. Feynman talks about this at length in his memoirs; it isn't that they have a different set of beliefs, it is that they're people who are comfortable not knowing. The type of questions that religion asks aren't "wrong," they're just things that don't have clear answers. And scientists are usually people who can accept not knowing, without feeling obligated to believe in specific answers.
If you're stuck on for/against, you already do believe in something, but you might not have any idea what it is or why you believe in it. But it sure as fuck isn't science!
You can believe all you want, but to know something objectively you need science.
If objective knowledge was even thought to be possible, science would never have been invented.
If you were using the scientific method, you'd never make the assumption that you had objective knowledge.
It gets even worse if you ask two classical physicists to explain the mechanism behind flight.
There are bunch of different opinions, a bunch of contradictory explanations, and a wide variety of formulas that all predict the same flight behavior, but totally disagree on the processes.
The attempted pedanticisms that fall out are truly hilarious.
If you believe in "hard science" then you've already rejected science; you can't believe in science. And people who others would accuse of believing in science would actually have no beliefs at all, if it was true.
Science is actually a formal process, not a belief system.
Also, why are you starting from the assumption that the world has to have an explanation? Maybe there is simply no explanation. It may also be that science doesn't attempt to explain anything, it is just a process that moves forwards regardless of if you understood it or not.
It is the exact same sort of logical error that religionists make when they say, "If you don't believe in my God, you must believe in my Devil!"
It doesn't have to be aliens to be a really good excuse to re-read Rendezvous with Rama, though.
Aliens are withing the set of unknowns, and this is an unknown, so it is a reasonable time to think about it.
OTOH, if it was mandated in Europe, a year later this same post would still be showing up.
Europe isn't a country and doesn't have a constitution, and yet you have rules that your governments are required to implement. Your system of government is such that you can't make broad statements about what changes you might see in the future; you could have nearly any rules in the future, without even having to change the system.
If there is a point or not is something you'll have to wait until they tell you to know. You don't even have freedom of speech.
Those are called "movies."
You're gonna be so excited when you make it to the surface and find a theater!
Most states have specialty plates, but only one type of tags.
It all sounds good, untiiiil you realize that most US States have a "ballot measure" system; including Michigan.
Once you find out that the Ebil Gubermint is easily over-ruled directly by the voters on a per-issue basis at the State level, and that license plates are done at the State level, then you can realize that it is stupid to think the State could mandate the use of something like this; or that they would even try.
Obviously, the targets are politically-conservative investors, and the only real product is the investment instrument itself.
If the basic purpose of the device is not clearly and entirely safety-related, then it isn't going to be mandated. Any proposals for mandated tracking will be bundled with safety equipment; not with the vehicle licensing.
The problem with the conspiracy theorists isn't their paranoia or vigilance, it is simply their persistent lack of critical thinking about the problems they worry about.