Yeah, as the AC said, only for Americans.
Socialism and totalitarism with socialistic elements (a.k.a. comunism) are totally different, yet somehow many people confuse them.
Taking current state to extremes, Sweden is socialism (having large taxes & personal freedom), while USA is fascist (small taxes & lack of personal freedom).
it may take juries a bit to warm up to the idea of placing blame where it really belongs
You mean the dumbass who walked into moving traffic???
Situations certainly exist where the driver bears responsibility for hitting a pedestrian (running a red light,
taking a blind corner as fast as the car can handle), but let's not turn this into one of those joke arguments
about poor defenseless pedestrians vs the nasty aggressive drivers.
I'll skip the stories of idiot bimbos on cellphones randomly walking out from between two parked SUVs to cross
four-lane roads, and skip right to a real gem that blew me away. Two winters ago, coming home from work, the
roads had a nasty layer of ice on them. I crested a hill doing easily 10mph under, and saw a guy talking to
his neighbor across the road, from the MIDDLE of my lane. Now, I had a good 600-800ft to him, and he had
perhaps a full 30 seconds to get out of the way. I applied the breaks, no effect. So I honked (three
brief taps, not blaring the horn at him) to warn him, and the stupid bastard flipped me off and kept
standing there chatting!
I kept honking and eventually nudged my car into the other lane (thank god for no oncoming traffic) to avoid
hitting him, and succeeded. But seriously - I swear if I could have stopped, I would have gotten out to beat
the shit out of him.
And yet, had my car hit him, any court in the country would have called it "my" fault for failure to control my
car.
So yeah, not a lot of sympathy when you tell me we where the blame "belongs" for these Darwin-award candidates.
Dude, it is failure to control your car, after all. Also, I cannot seem to recall the exact passage in the traffic regulations that says you can run over pedestrians.
Nope. Helmet is much safer. Between debris, bugs, noise and everything else the helmet offers a safe environment in which to ride.
Not to mention the fact that the helmet may not protect you from a 30 mph head-on collision, but will save you quite a bit of pain if you happen to be lucky and slide on the pavement.
BTW the author does not mention that a 30 mph head-on collision in a car against a brick wall has 50% fatality rate.
Now do you suppose I'll be modded down to troll if I say:
I, for one, welcome our new Muslim overlords.
Am I a racist, bigot, asshole? A promulgator of hatred... or am I just a dude trying to be funny while exercising his right to free speech?
There seems to be a large disconnect with speech and free in a goodly chunk of the world, particularly in nations where Islam is the dominant religion. But I guess the UN thinks I shouldn't be making remarks like that because that would be criticism.
Nope, you are not. OTOH, if you said "let's kill the damned muslims" in the hate speech manner sometimes happens, you are ARE liable under current laws in western countries you may consider democracies and the USA.
If you read the actual resolutions you will see that the resolution is actually to protect people and sacred symbols from being beaten, molested, raped or otherwise destroyed (not sure what raped is for a monument, but was worth the thought). Of course that includes speaking "let's kill the damned muslims", and the democratic countries already have such laws.
Oh well, this is
Bullshit. "as well as the targeting of religious symbols and venerated persons", for instance, would seem to suggest that it would be forbidden(if this ever became binding anywhere) to say anything that people didn't like about a religious symbol or figure(even one long dead or mythological, in fact, saying that such a figure is mythological would probably be illegal). That is a Real Serious Problem.
For one thing, all but the blandest religions make enough historical and metaphysical claims that they are mutually contradictory with those of other religions. To simply espouse the doctrines of one would be to, at least implicitly, target the symbols or figures of another. Not to mention the cool crackdowns against atheists and whatnot.
Much of the resolution is bland, inoffensive sounding boilerplate; but parts aren't. It's like butter mixed with broken glass.
I am not really convinced that your example is correct. I think "targeting" in the original sentence is synonymous to killing, bullying, destroying, etc rather than "speaking against".
Moreover, I am convinced that the European and other western countries (the ones with good human rights records) and USA need no further laws to fully accommodate that resolution. On the contrary, it seems this resolution actually requires the Muslim states to enact laws that will protect the people on their territory from being killed/beaten/etc because of another round of Danish comics coming out.
I'm a daily rider of a motorcycle and felt I should note that while a motorcycle with a single rider uses less gas than a single person riding in a car, they create more pollution.
Well, this article is extremely biased.
First, it cites Athens as an example, where motorcycles reduced traffic, and still "let's ban them, there's better". Well, DOH, public transportation is better. Not to mention a proper way to fix the "motorcycle on a crossing" problem is by introducing additional space for motorcycles in front of cars, like in London. Or increase driver culture (which I hear in Greece is even worse than in USA).
Secondly, it doesn't take into account secondary effects, those of congestion on pollution. Whilst the motorcycle pollutes more per mile, I presume that is when they are driving at the same speed. It doesn't point out that motorcycle average speed in a city (due to white lining or going round stopped cars), it doesn't point out that a decelerating car uses far much energy than a motorcycle, etc.
The conclusions are equally biased, and whilst eliminating motorcycles is good IMHO, the fair way is by promoting public transport. The general impression I get is that the author basically says "let's tax the hell out of it" or just strait prohibit it.
Isn't that exactly what they do when you fail to pay the bills? Maybe the situation is different in the US, but in most countries service providers can cut you off without a court order when you break the contract.
Yes, they could. And then you CAN sue them for quite a lot of things if in fact they were wrong and you did pay the bills.
The GP assets those laws don't allow you to sue the ISPs for wrongful disconnect.
That isn't exactly true. General Relativity predicts exactly how they should behave
GR predicts exactly how they should beahve, if GR is true and correct in every particular. Until we detect enough gravity waves to see whether this is so, we're not entirely sure how gravity waves behave, or that GR is entirely correct.
Which was probably a big part of the reason everyone said "nah, didn't happen" back in '87. If he saw what he thought he saw, then something would've had to've been wrong with GR*, and we can' have that.
* actually not, of course, but that's sure the way it looked in '87 - if this guy is right, Einstein is wrong. And who are you going to believe, him, or Big Al?
You portray it as a battle between people, when in fact it was battle between theories. While protecting established theories on the grounds that they are infaliable is stupid and NOT science, protecting them because you have issues with the methodology of the experiment itself is sound.
... we owed about $5,000
Oh yeah? So you paid $2 620 286 then?
What utter bullshit.
My guess is he meant to say 11% per ANNUM, per day. It's like your mortgage interest. Your ANNUAL interest rate may be 6% but your payment is monthly, so interest is your balance multiplied by 1/12 of 6%. Otherwise the interest payment on a $100,000 mortgage would be $6,000 per month.
I see, then that's the whopping number 11,625% per annum. Big deal. I don't know the CC rates but in my country they start at 14% annually, compound monthly.
... we owed about $5,000
Oh yeah? So you paid $2 620 286 then?
What utter bullshit.
Courage, Duty, Honor
... and TOR
I think perhaps we are constantly entangled, but that our "consciousness"
Just because it's unusual to us doesn't mean it's mystical or magical. For your idea to actually be science and not philosophy you'd need a much better grasp of what you're actually saying. Saying something like "we're all constantly entangled" doesn't really mean a lot, since entanglement doesn't occur on a macro-scale.
People have tried to tie together mysticism, quantum mechanics, and consciousness before. At best it's an interesting exercise in thinking. At worst it's nonsense gibberish. To my knowledge it's never really produced anything approaching science.
You should check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence
but even without those restrictions I'm not going to hand out my password to my
boss, my boss's boss, or even the CEO of the company.
I like my job, but preserving it comes pretty damned far behind "my freedom" in order of
my priorities. Jail vs giving out the keys to the kingdom? "Would you like the portcullis
up or down when you arrive, Mr. Barbarian?"
Anyone who chooses prison over a job doesn't count as "principled", they count as an idiot.
P and GP may be talking about the same thing. If I have assigned the keys to take care of the network, and more importantly am liable both morally and legally (morally is needed because of future employments, who knows), then it is plainly a good idea to keep them secret.
However, if my boss or my boss' boss or the CEO asks to have them and most importantly signs a paper that request them, by god, just give it to the man. By having the command in writing you are covered in case something wrong happens with those keys.
If no written order comes, how are they supposed to prove you denied them the request?
There is no evidence that music being played to babies in the womb does anything. In fact the guy that did the original research did it on college students and no one really understands how this correlation to babies ever materialized.
This might be it, then
After any salary raise, you will have less money at the end of the month than you did before.
