Tourists who joined a vehicle caravan out to the site at a school in Tularosa were greeted by demonstrators from the Tularosa Basin Downwinders who came to protest the 70th anniversary tour. The Downwinders is a grass-roots group that has set out to bring public awareness about the negative impacts of the detonation of the bomb.
So what do these demonstraters hope to accomplish? Are they going to protest hard enough to prevent the test from happening in 1945?
Have fun living in the past.
I really hope that the future contains more than the dubious benefits of owning a smartphone.
The short summary of your post is "Republicans must be racists, because I don't understand them."
And apparently Democrats can dislike Obama all they want, and that doesn't make them racists. Great double standard there.
The story isn't that somebody made an NES emulator. Those have been around forever, and this is going to be uninteresting if all you want to do is play Mario. The story is that somebody wrote an article about it for anyone who is curious about some of the details.
The article does focus mostly on the NES hardware, though, and I was expecting some insight on interesting or difficult points of writing the emulator itself.
Frankly, their rationale sucks.
In particular, their points:
"No clear standards exist for defining foods as good or bad, or healthy or not healthy." -- true that it's hard to categorize everything as "good" or "bad", but that doesn't mean that it's hard to categorize some foods as bad. To use the OP's example, Froot Loops have zero value in a healthy diet.
"No evidence exists that food stamp participation contributes to poor diet quality or obesity." -- this one is a strawman; I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim that being on food stamps causes obesity. This is missing the point.
"Restrictions may be ineffective in changing the purchases of food stamp participants" -- another strawman; this one argues that food stamp rules should not change because people can spend their non-food-stamp money on something else. Who cares? I don't mind them spending their own money on whatever they want; it's just when they're taking money from my pocket that I should get some input.
Of course the USDA doesn't want any restrictions on food stamp benefits. Like every government organization, they have to justify their existence, and the more money that you can pump into their budget, the better.
The only thing more annoying than a computer is a computer that tries to be helpful.
Police shootings should be reserved for life and death EMERGENCIES - I have seen no proof this was one.
Yet you think that the law enforcement officers should be willing to risk their own lives to stop them, which unless you place a very low value on their lives, tells me that you think it is an emergency after all.
While there is of necessity some risk to their safety in the course of their job, that doesn't mean that they signed up to give up their lives needlessly just to satisfy some jackasses who don't know the difference between fantasy and reality.
The car could have been easily stopped by ramming it off the road, and people tackled and arrested.
This isn't Hollywood. That's a course of action that has pretty good odds of resulting in the people attempting to do the arrest injured or killed.
You'll rue to day in America when you allow any idiot with a badge shoot anyone for any reason
This isn't "any reason." This is attempting to ram the gate at a secure checkpoint, where the use of deadly force is expected.
I'm not willing to risk the lives of law enforcement or soldiers in order to try to spare people who are apparently too stupid to live.
Or the government could order the pilots back to work and start fining them for all their assets if they didn't.
I thought we got rid of slavery a century or two ago.
By summer, they may have been able to finish assembling half a dozen of those 10,000 shelters.
Because smart people don't seem to want the job.
Cue the whiners, indeed.
Your argument doesn't make any sense. A corporation is an abstract entity that is made up of people. It doesn't exist in any independent sense. If you force a corporation to do something, you are forcing the people employed by that corporation to do it.
You don't get to put down your corporate shield whenever that suits you, yet hide behind it the rest of the time.
When have I claimed that an employee gets to hide behind this "corporate shield" whenever they like? A person, whether they are an employee (or owner) of a corporation, are still legally and morally responsible for their own actions. You can certainly be prosecuted for a crime committed while working for a corporation.
You are perhaps making the mistake of thinking that the concept of "limited liability" is more all-encompassing than it really is. That applies to the financial liability of shareholders, not to the actions of the corporation's employees.
People don't lose their humanity just because they work for (or own) a corporation.
Society has a very clear interest in preventing you from running someone over in your car, which trumps your claim of religious freedom.
It's much more debatable whether society has, for example, such an interest in forcing you to participate in a gay wedding.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire
