Al Gore. Yes, Al Gore who now owns multiple mansions. His mansion in Nashville was found to have 10x the energy usage of my house while being roughly 3x the size. In other words, he burns more than 3x as much energy per square foot than I do.
He has a private jet.
He's not living as if climate change were an emergency, why should anybody believe him?
<input type="date"> still doesn't work. Basic html5 stuff.
Come. On.
The economists love to say that trade is great for everyone.
No. This is crony capitalism. Free trade is great for everyone, with government's role being to make sure it stays "free". Nobody outside of the two major political parties will tell you that crony capitalism is good for anybody except the cronies.
Sigh. Crony Capitalism is the antithesis of Free Markets. Always.
It sounds like he got caught lying about a crime he didn't commit, which is one of the more ridiculous aspects of the US judicial system.
If he didn't commit a crime there was no reason to lie about it. He had the option to say nothing under the 5th amendment. He certainly cannot reasonable argue that he didn't know it was a crime to lie to the FBI about his activities especially since he helped write some of the laws pertaining to prosecution of those very same activities.
To be fair, few people currently in the federal government have heard of the Constitution, much less have familiarity with the various parts of it.
See here:
http://popehat.com/2015/05/29/...
(Note the writer is a former federal prosecutor)
From the article:
"We imagine law enforcement operating like we see on TV: someone commits a crime, everyone knows what the crime is, law enforcement reacts by charging them with that crime. But that's not how federal prosecution always works. Particularly with high-profile targets, federal prosecution is often an exercise in searching for a theory to prosecute someone that the feds would like to prosecute. There is an element of creativity: what federal statute can we find to prosecute this person?"
Someone wanted to go after Hastert, they found a way.
Now lots of folks internationally are skeptical of this. Surely if you wave enough money under their nose, they will bite, right? That's certainly the theory the rest of FIFA seems to operate under. So far US Soccer has held though. I hope they continue to do so.
There's the other issue that US Soccer doesn't have enough money to wave, anyway.
For these sawfish, asexual reproduction is most likely a desperation strategy used when the population has gotten so small that it is difficult or impossible to find mates. It is extremely unlikely that it will somehow improve the population's genetic fitness; more likely, it will lead to further decreases in genetic diversity and a corresponding loss of overall fitness.
I would point out furthermore that inbreeding and asexual reproduction have nothing to do with each other. It's unrelated. The problem with inbreeding is that you can get two copies of a single chromosome quite easily, and rare genetic diseases that appear only when the same gene is present on both chromosomes in a pair suddenly start popping up more often.
That's not an issue with asexual reproduction. It might at some point become an issue if the genetic diversity of the group becomes lesser, but that would be down the road somewhere.
To be fair, in the vast majority of cases, this is exactly what happens... cop engages brain, realizes that the situation either either something dumb, mistaken, or impossible to prosecute (and is otherwise not a crime), says as much to the complainant, and moves on. Or, in the case of what may be a crime but turns out to not be, same-same, with maybe a stern talking-to of the 'offender' that maybe he should not be so dumb in the future, or at least don't make the activity appear so damned suspicious.
About the same sample size as humanity at large, really, but with one subtle-yet-important distinction: force.
Having studied the problems with law enforcement for years I can say confidently that in most departments what you've said is true. The real problem is that when that one guy really screws up the reflexive response from everybody in his department (and the DA's office) is to circle the wagons and protect the idiot cop. I've talked about it here before but look up the case of David Bisard in Indianapolis as a fine example where there are no gray areas. He got drunk on duty and ran over a motorcyclist who was stopped at a stop light, killing the cyclist and gravely injuring two others. The FOP paid for his defense and 19 cops who showed up acted as if they couldn't tell that a guy who would later test at
That's the real problem.
Why does the left think the answer to every problem is "more of other people's money"?
Why does the right want stuff, but not want to pay for it?
I'm not on "the right", but I've yet to see this out of any conservatives that I know. Perhaps you can provide an example?
Where are the technical failsafes to limit the train's speed? Guess true security updates have been eaten by their desire for profit
Or, you could ask Congressional Republicans, who -- even as recently as 5 days ago -- cut/limit/deny funding for Amtrak.
More funding doesn't help Amtrak. Ever. They had the hardware to limit the speed, they just hadn't bothered to turn it on.
Why does the left think the answer to every problem is "more of other people's money"?
No offense, but your mistake is not understanding the segmentation. Look at all the restaurant chains/franchises owned by Yum to get an idea of how crazy it all is. You're correct that not all markets are dualities, but it's a very common theme particularly when you understand how companies place their brands.
I would particularly recommend the chapters around it which explain that you can create a new segment very easily.
Parents don't see their young girls as wanting to pursue computer science
OR
and don't steer them in that direction.
Which is it? I get the feeling it's that girls just aren't that interested. People like to point out that more girls were interested in the 80s but that was a very different era. Few people actually knew what was involved with "programming computers".
All of this effort reminds me of a similar misunderstanding that I came across years ago. In the 50s Lionel decided that girls didn't play with trains because they weren't "girly" enough. They were black and steel and perhaps too boyish. So the genius marketers came up with this:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/roadsh...
http://www.lionel.com/Products...
Should you wish to see one in person go to Holiday World and check out the old toy museum.
It flopped badly. The reason was simple: girls generally don't like trains, but those who do want an authentic train. Black, steel, menacing - a real train.
Every time I see people trying hard to make computer science appeal to girls I see the same thing. It simply doesn't appeal to most girls, and to those to whom it does appeal it will have that appeal without any sugar coating.
Ultimately, the SJW crowd needs to understand that men and women - and boys and girls - are very different creatures who aren't interested in the same sorts of things. The roots of this are genetic and stem from the social order tens of thousands of years ago. Nothing's going to "fix" it, but, then again, there's nothing to fix.
Law 8 is "the law of duality" - every market becomes a two horse race. Coca-Cola & Pepsi, Nike & Reebok, etc. The horses here are "iPhone" and "Android". The best Mozilla can hope for at this point is to become Royal Crown Cola.
Yes, that's what I came to say. I have many firearms, most of them far more powerful than a 9mm pistol. There are more guns than people, and that's just civilian arms.
If you analyse anything, you destroy it. -- Arthur Miller
