Comment Impractical. (Score 1) 34
The cords would just keep getting tangled up. You're much better off getting the DC model with a big battery pack.
The cords would just keep getting tangled up. You're much better off getting the DC model with a big battery pack.
Freak.
you really do like to hear yourself talk.
You're a complete moron.
WTF is with those "sponsored links" at the bottom? Apparently even the "disable ads" option doesn't remove them. Oh well, at least I can kill them with adblock.
God forbid any of the African nations affected by this disease cough up any money.
Considering that the cost to the U.S. of this ebola outbreak is going to be in the billions of dollars, it makes a lot of sense to fund research into vaccines to reduce the cost to us later on, regardless of what other countries are doing.
holy crap are you a fuckwit.
All, except you of course.
To be fair, editors have to take guesses at what is going to be common knowledge in the readership vs things that need to be explicitly stated. It is not always an easy thing to get right, and always erring on the side of explaining is its own problem.
It's too bad that nobody has invented a method where a link to a full explanation could be included within the summary itself. Maybe when people start using this new-fangled "world wide web" thing, we'll be able to do cool things like that.
Could you please inform the engineers that the North Sea is full of salt water? Armed with that piece of information that I'm sure they don't have, they can take that into consideration when designing this.
More likely they'll have to cancel the project. After all, if it was possible for modern technology to create machinery that works when submersed in salt water, I sure that somebody would have already done it.
I'm hoping that was sarcasm.
If you stay on DST year round, won't schedules eventually gravitate towards everything happening an hour later? And eventually, somebody will get the brilliant idea to switch the clocks forward another hour...
It is misleading, although mostly because the "House Majority PAC" is misleadingly named. I'm not quite sure what they intend to accomplish with that name -- maybe they're trying to make it less obvious which party is benefiting from "outside money"? Their website says that it was formed in 2011, so it's never actually been aligned with the "house majority."
Let's review, shall we?
You obviously do think that there are circumstances where it is appropriate to impose restrictions on a person's liberty when there is some threshold of probability that they could infect others with a deadly disease.
Obviously, you are the one lying. I never said any such thing.
But then you say:
A person who is a danger to themselves and others may be restrained. Whether that's someone with advanced Ebola or waiving a gun around in a crowd, the answer is the same.
I don't know any way to reconcile those statements. They are fundamentally contradictory.
I keep saying you support quarantines because you keep supporting them. "I'm against quarantines, but I think they should be used" isn't a consistent point of view.
Repeated assertion does not make something true. I am capable of recognizing and assessing the arguments on both sides, and I intensely dislike a mode of debate that tries to marginalize or misrepresent the people on the other side.
I never lied. You are arguing with people who, for as much as you'll share about your reasons, want the same thing you do, but for different reasons. That I expose your stupidity doesn't make me a liar. Though I can see how it would make me unpopular with those I'm exposing the stupidity of.
You keep saying that I support quarantines. That is untrue, and you know it. That is the definition of a lie. If you don't like being called a liar, you should probably stop doing it.
You obviously do think that there are circumstances where it is appropriate to impose restrictions on a person's liberty when there is some threshold of probability that they could infect others with a deadly disease.
Obviously, you are the one lying. I never said any such thing. There is the assumption that FEMA/CDC/etc can step in in the case of a national emergency. I didn't follow the cases closely, but from my understanding, the concentration camps in WWII were never ruled "unconstitutional", even though apologies were offered for them. Since everyone else assumes it, I wasn't going to argue the color of the shoes of the government officials that would be involved. Seemed irrelevant.
So you believe that a quarantine is never appropriate, under any circumstances? All right; I'll believe you, although I got a different impression from these comments that you made that led me to believe that you thought that quarantining a person who was "actively sick" with Ebola would be reasonable.
Denying the right of the government to impose a quarantine under any circumstances is a consistent point of view, albeit one that is probably not going to get much support.
When you act like a reasonable person, then maybe that would be what this is about.
How about you address what I said, rather than making personal attacks? Do you deny the statement that "Reasonable people can disagree on what that threshold is, and what the restrictions should be?" Based on your last answer, maybe you do. But say so, rather than lashing out.
You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred. -- Superchicken
