Comment Re: Really? (Score 2) 368
From what I remember, Ronald Reagan wasn't.
From what I remember, Ronald Reagan wasn't.
Why is your rice cooker the only one on the planet that takes longer to cook rice than the standard method? Most are the same or slightly faster, and unlike the stovetop, impossible to set the heat too high or too low, so the end result is generally more consistent.
Rice cookers are also brilliant at making slow cooked oatmeal (rolled or steel cut), which is the only kind worth eating.
Because the ballot only has a choice between psycopath A and psycopath B.
Occassionally, an option for a third candidate with a different DSMIV diagnosis appears also.
I can improve the truth of your statements by redacting some of the excess verbiage:
Polygraphs are only used by government agencies. There aren't any substantial uses for these. Just adding inefficiency to the process.
I don't think your reasoning is very sound. Isn't it possible to be a great scientist, judge, journalist, or lawyer, and also be a bad person? Or, more specific to this argument, isn't it possible for a trait which makes you a great scientist to also make you a bad person? More importantly, is it possible to lack that trait, or to be a good person, and still be a great scientist, judge, journalist, or lawyer?
I believe the answer to each of these questions is yes.
Um, that's not even accurate. Our medical care is second to none in quality and capability.
By what measure? We probably rank first in cost per patient and expensive testing machines per patient. But I don't know of any measure of outcomes where the US ranks first (for most procedures, not even in the top 10-20).
Perhaps a lawyer needs to boldly go and inform this court that they now need to waste taxpayer money translating the sci-fi bullshit presented as a legal argument. You know, for the rest of the planet that doesn't know what a Tribble is.
To an average English speaker who has never heard of Star Trek, the text quoted is far more understandable than the average legal document. Who should pay for the usually required translation from legalese?
When greater than 95% of experts agree, trying to turn it into a liberal/conservative position is spin.
That said, defining the problem should not dictate the solution, any more than disagreeing with a proposed solution should be just cause for denying the problem.
Though really, I don't think I need another water type against the Elite Four.
They are legally obligated to maximize shareholders' value. This makes them care for my money and the only ways for them to get it is to offer me something I want
Right. And if only the pesky meddling government would stop interfering, they wouldn't be legally obligated. That's fixes things, right?
It isn't just semantics. Incorporation confers many actual functional differences from free forming groups, even excepting taxation, which free forming groups do not have. You can imagine a fantasy world where this is not true, just please don't confuse it with the actual one we live in.
For this to be true, Libertarians will need to back the dissolution of all corporations. Corporations are, after all, a charter granted by the government (which, in theory, is acting on behalf of the collective citizenry).
This is a provably false assertion. I know a large number of free citizens who do not own weapons.
It was corporate interests that sold Americans on the idea that Capitalism went hand in hand with Christianity. I love the irony of Christianity arguing back. (It isn't just the pope, there have been some fundamentalist groups making the same basic argument recently).
The existence of hubs makes the question moot for normal daily usage. But when you need to do repairs or diagnostics, being able to boot from a usb drive and plug in a second usb drive to transfer files is always nice.
Real Programmers don't eat quiche. They eat Twinkies and Szechwan food.