Comment Re:By that logic, so has the 4th Amendment (Score 1) 431
Bah, they don't need that data. They just have to look at posting history on slashdot. Of course [he] is.
Bah, they don't need that data. They just have to look at posting history on slashdot. Of course [he] is.
The fundamentals were there. The problem was that she had difficulty applying it to a car, and more specifically, the brakes. Some basic ideas like the relationship between weight and inertia had to explained in detail and not just referenced. In the end I never felt satisfied that she really understood everything because she refused to discuss it anymore.
I was on a long trip, going through the Rockies with a very loaded sedan, towing a trailer. It was her turn to drive and for some time I had been repeatedly admonishing her to increase her following distance, slow down, etc., because of the excess weight. As she continued to ignore me my explanations grew longer and more detailed, until finally she interrupted me with "What's inertia?"
When Monsanto and their "buy seeds from me till the end of time or we'll end you" business model are both long gone we can talk about GMO. Till then I am 100% against GMO ( because GMO == Monsanto ).
Precisely. The study asked a question that results in an expected answer 80% of the time. So why would such a study be conducted in the first place?
http://canola.okstate.edu/gmof...
^^ Big ole page-o-propaganda
So pretty much every retail job in the country should be required to be vaccinated?
Ideally yes though I realize that is probably unrealistic.
I'm just trying to clarify what level of "general public" interaction requires this vaccination oversight? Who's going to pay for it? The government or the employer?
Most people are vaccinated already when they are children so the vast majority of the cost is already accounted for. The rest of it is probably pretty much the easiest cost/benefit analysis ever. The cost of the vaccines and program administration would almost certainly be hugely outweighed by the reduced health care costs. I imagine it would be pretty straightforward to do this either with public or private money. Most medical insurance already covers getting vaccines. (vaccines are generally very cheap)
If people shouldn't be forced then how do they work, given that 44% of the jobs in the US are in some form of retail, transportation, education, or healthcare and another ~10-15% are "professional and business services" or "government" that include some sort of regular customer interaction, how are they to have jobs and also choose not to be vaccinated?
Since the point is that they should be vaccinated the answer to your question seems self evident. Furthermore those numbers do not add up to 100% and the percent of loonies who don't get vaccinated is in the single digits.
No they don't add up to 100% but it's a huge portion of the working populace and you can't have it both ways. You can't say you want to give people choice and then limit ~60% of the job market from them.
Regarding cost, I was talking about the cost of the oversight. Verification that people do, in fact, have the appropriate vaccinations etc. You can't ensure this without some significant cost associated with the tracking and oversight.
So pretty much every retail job in the country should be required to be vaccinated? I'm just trying to clarify what level of "general public" interaction requires this vaccination oversight? Who's going to pay for it? The government or the employer?
If people shouldn't be forced then how do they work, given that 44% of the jobs in the US are in some form of retail, transportation, education, or healthcare and another ~10-15% are "professional and business services" or "government" that include some sort of regular customer interaction, how are they to have jobs and also choose not to be vaccinated?
Hiring people actively engaged in breaking federal and state law and putting themselves in a position of incapacitation as a result? I draw the line there. I don't like drug tests but the reality is I dislike hiring people who could potentially screw up my company by 1) bringing illegal substances to my office 2) potentially getting arrested before a big meeting they are crucial to 3) whatever else you might be able to come up with that increases the risk of hiring the drug using person over a non drug user.
That said, I won't provide employers with financial data, nor will I provide anyone that asks information about my personal life outside of work, be it facebook information, linkedin, my hobbies or anything else.
The whole issue must boil down to a soundbyte and that ends it.
Monsanto eclipses everything you said, is so evil that any attempt to dilute the topic, or divert attention away from how evil they are, is evil. No threat to our food supply is a bigger threat than Monsanto.
F that. Give me the quietest car possible. I'd much rather listen to my music or my companions speaking to me than the damn engine!
Currently, accepting GMO means becoming a vassal of Monsanto Corporation. Why would any sane populace _choose_ to be dependent on an ethically challenged mega-corp for their food supply? This isn't about fear, *no one* in a decision making position is *afraid* of GMO. They're just smart enough to keep it the fuck out of their country.
Next time you decide to throw in a bonus (inseparable from Monsanto) GMO plug while posting, please refrain from the standard "fear" debate Monsanto shills always use --and kindly explain why any farmer would choose to depend on Monsanto for his livelihood *forever*. In the U.S. there is no "choice", they'll get you eventually.
Thing is, YOU are well aware of all of this, and yet here you are advocating for GMO. You're a bad person.
Your definition of "beyond reasonable doubt" and mine are different. the few times I've moderated something overrated it has ALWAYS been because it was at least a majority, if not entirely, incorrect. I agree, there are very few reasons to mod down but incorrect information is definitely one of them.
No one has said it was acceptable. What I said (and what I believe the Pope meant) is that it's not a surprise that when you go out of your way to offend someone, they react badly.
There are any number of instances where you could say so & so should be "turned into a glass crater" because of some real or imagined slight or offense. Obviously no one is condoning the out-of-proportion response to the Charlie Ebdo but let's not act like this is some sort of shock either. It's happened before and the editors of Charlie Ebdo chose to continue the action. I'm not saying I disagree with their choice (I think we should be able to say & print whatever we think as long as it doesn't put people in physical harm - like yelling fire in a crowded theater as the classic example) but let's not try to imply they had no part of this and the action was completely unexpected.
The only real question is whether or not it is reasonable to think that their actions did directly put people in harm. I think not, but clearly someone disagrees with me.
What he said was violence is bad and you shouldn't commit violence. But if you deliberately offend someone, you should expect some level of violent response. He implied this is because humans haven't learned very well how not to respond with violence.
Just because violence is bad doesn't mean you should go through life somehow expecting to avoid it and acting insulted when it happens after you've been a douchebag.
Please read the rest of Genesis. Abraham lived to be 175 supposedly. This came after Genesis 6:3. Hell, Isaac (son of Abraham) was born when Abraham was 100 years old and Sarah (Isaac's mother) was 90 years old (Genesis 17:17). Terah (Abraham's father) was 205 years old (Genesis 11:27–32).
That reference is inconsistent, to say the least.
The one day you'd sell your soul for something, souls are a glut.
