Comment Naming conventions (Score 0) 280
I know coming up with names isn't as easy as you would think, but, seriously, they called it cyanogen?
I know coming up with names isn't as easy as you would think, but, seriously, they called it cyanogen?
True of *any* alien life.
I think I'd rather put up with the madness of the court's evaluation of each individual case of liberty, and whether or not they compromise the rights of others, than to have certain ones crossed off the list to begin with.
Madness is not what you want in a judicial system. Rights are far more likely to be undermined by courts making it up as they go than by Parliament.
This isn't actually privacy, and it's sad that people aren't clearer about what is and isn't privacy.
Though still a bit troubling.
Because they're desperately hoping to avoid the inflation that will start as soon as people notice how drastically they've devalued the currency, and changing the money would be too big of a clue.
And if there's a national security emergency, does everyone without clearance just have to step outside while he takes the call?
It's, you know, things...
But here's the twist: they're on the Internet!
And, no, there isn't any more to it than that. In other words, what the Internet has been for the last 50 years with nothing original added except new marketing hype(tm).
They weren't looking for random hate crimes.
The failure to use the the Notwithstanding Clause the way it was intended has made law arbitrary and unpredictable.
Space:1999 was made in the 70s, but I guess it ties in with the 90s....
When your example of change is something that took over 300 years, it may be a less compelling example than you think.
Cuba was a colony that was given sham independence, and then started acting like it had actual independence. And the US government is petty and vindictive.
Like it or not, the president is an irreplaceable military asset and the area around White House is military airspace (or effectively the same thing).
The weather prediction is about probabilities, not clairvoyance. It isn't incorrect simply because the actual weather is different from the expected.
And with the way workers are (on average) treated by their employers, is is really such a bad thing that some people had a day off?
But the 10 000 isn't for a specific purpose, and probably there will be no conclusive proof of corruption.
It's simply that people who agree with the donors are the ones who receive money, and only people receiving money have any realistic chance to participate.
In fact, almost all politicians are some combination of sincerely convinced of what they claim, too ignorant to understand what they claim, or simply mentally ill.
Which means a tiny bit more money isn't going to change their mind.
If all else fails, lower your standards.
