That some how you try to imply this constitutes a new species, makes you a moron.
Who are you talking to? What do you gain by having an imaginary conversation with someone that you're pretending has said something that nobody said?
All domestic dogs are the same species. Just like all humans. But let me guess: you aren't willing to refer to Standard Poodles, or Chihuahuas, or English Pointers as breeds, right?
Well let's ignore the fact that Mongolia, Russia, and Ethiopia are places, not races.
Why ignore that? I chose those specifically because - despite the serious melting-pot stuff of the last 100+ years or so - those PLACES have also been home to readily identifiable large groups of people who share very obvious genetic traits.
Race is a social term used to generalize the ancestry of a person. It's to vague to make a prediction about the genes, and their expression, in a particular person.
But, inconveniently, it's also a perfectly reasonable way to look at a large group and say, "Wow, that group of several million people sure do have a LOT in common, genetically."
I think most of know cases similar to the family with 3 brown hair and eyed kids, and 1 with blonde hair and blue eyes.
Yes, just like most know cases similar to the family with 3 smart kids and 1 much less smart one.
As soon as you come up with a heritable definition for race you can start on your analysis of heritable differences in relation to race.
How about: reasonable people of normal intelligence can readily observe the inheritance of broad classes of physically obvious traits - related to skeletal and muscle structure, pigmentation, hair formation, disease susceptibility, and so on - that plainly manifest themselves in large groups of people that have developed together and have tended to breed amongst themselves.
That you try so hard to proclaim that such obvious things are not real makes you sound like, well, a total tool.
So which differences in skin tone, height, and facial features uniquely define the races
Who says it has to be distinct, unique enough perfect compartmentalization enough to put people entirely, precisely in one box of the next?
But are you REALLY pretending that you can't immediately spot some people as being obviously of Mongolian, or Russian, or Ethiopian extraction? I can spot people of Scandinavian heritage a mile away, and can readily see the differences between people carrying DNA from the Andes vs. DNA from the jungles of Central America. Why are you trying so hard to pretend those differences are plainly obvious? What do you gain, other than street cred with the willfully obtuse politically correct set?
And you know this how, exactly? Strong opinions require strong evidence, I read somewhere.
I know this because I actually read. The Russian government does you the favor of making their clamp-downs on freedom of communication very clear. Of course you know this, which is why you're trolling anonymously and pretending you don't. Here, just from today's
http://politics.slashdot.org/s...
The point you're trying to make here is ludicrous.
No, the point is that Russia is a fundamentally less free place to live than the US, and getting worse by the day.
And prison only enters into it when, like Snowden, you scam your coworkers out of passwords, and then do something like deliberately steal all sorts of sensitive data and take it right to Russia by way of China.
Ignoring, of course, that Snowden is much more free in Russia than he would be in the United States.
Just not free to travel. Just no free to get on TV with Putin and ask unscripted questions. Just not free to run a campaign of anti-Putin editorials, or to run a journalism organization without having that organization torn down by Putin for being contrary to his wishes, and perhaps have its reporters gunned down on their home doorsteps. But plenty free, of course, to conduct economic activity that directly supports a guy who is violently annexing a neighboring country while transparently lying his ass off about what he has his troops (and artillery and anti-aircraft missiles) doing. Free to support the guy that's propping up the Assad regime's deliberate mass slaughter, and free to operate in a country that purposefully, and cooperatively - gleefully, even - harbors some of the worst, most violent organized crime operators in the world. Yay, free!
And he would've gotten away with it too, if it weren't for those rotten teenagers.
Meddling kids. The phrase you're looking for is, "meddling kids."
Imagine where we'd be if Palin were president.
Yeah, or that shining example of progressive intellectuual integrity, John Edwards.
Free TV in my country (Denmark) is mostly free of advertising.
Are you one of the people who pays no taxes?
A carbon tax does not affect every business equally.
But it will generally affect competitors equally. Two different taxi companies, or two different electricity generating companies that use coal. Or two different hotels of the same class and size in the same city.
And since competing businesses tend to have to lower prices in order to remain competitive in the same market as they pursue the same prospective customer, the tax burden is going to raise costs (and lower margins) more or less the same for both (or several) parties.
The entire idea is that businesses will strive to become more efficient such that they produce less pollution so that they'll be taxed less.
But because such penalties impact all businesses in whatever country is collecting them, it won't really change things - because all of those businesses will simply pass along the new government-mandated increase in their overhead along in the form of higher prices. To the businesses in question, it just goes in one door and out the other. You want to use the heavy hand of the tax collector to damage people's behavior in a way that makes them go out less, drive less, spend less, do less? Tax citizens directly, with a very special line item they can't miss, that says "carbon tax, because you exist" - and they'll act. Well, mostly they'll act to elect people who will undo that tax, but they'll act.
I doubt there are any safe uses for a drone. Do we really want a remotely controlled small aircraft flying around our homes and communities?
You're right. You're definitely on to something there. And while we're making sure that a professional real estate photographer with his reputation on the line is not to be trusted with a three and a half pound quadcopter, we should be even MORE restrictive of the OTHER dangerous stuff that's moving around our homes and communities. Like, pre-occupied 19 year olds driving cars. Like large dogs on cheap leashes. Like idiots on mountain bikes hopping curbs and cutting through read lights. Definitely start with the Evil Drones, but please don't stop there! There are so many dangers! Oh, definitely don't forget steak knives and riding lawnmowers.
How do you know that all those real estate agents are using the drones safely?
Never mind the tiny number of people shooting a few real estate stills from treetop level. How do you know that the many, many thousands of people who are flying around for fun are being safe? But the FAA (so far) is honoring congress's mandate that hobbyists be left alone, even though they just said that hobbyists flying FPV style are no longer allowed. Regardless, the hobby drone market has hundreds of thousands of customers. There might be a few hundred people shooting real estate. Can you explain why you think it's a good thing to hurt them, but not to care about all sorts of reckless hobby newbies (just search on YouTube)? Please be specific.
How do you know that the real estate agent really knows how to fly one of the drones
How do you know that your neighor, who just had a ready-to-fly quad dropped off by UPS and who's in the air 30 minutes later, is safe? Really. How do you know? And why do you think that people who are doing it professionally, with their businesses and reputations on the line, are more dangerous than a 12 year old kid next door who's on his third quad having crashed the first two in spectacular fashion? How do you know? Please be specific. Because the FAA thinkks the 12 year old kid is fine, but the person who takes great care to avoid endangering their real estate business liability coverage while shooting the occasional photo should be stopped. An odd thing for you to support.
But one could describe yours as being backwards just as easily as mine. It's simply a matter of perspective.
If by that you mean that clearly written words in the English language have no actual meaning, then sure, I guess. If you mean that the Constitution, and the countless supporting documents and correspondence written to, between and about its authors and the large groups of representatives that agreed on its purpose and amendments to it were just setting us with something that had no actual meaning, then sure. But that's BS, and you know it.
No, I never said "every" anything. I said drones. Period.
The Constitution makes no such distinctions between one tool and the next. But of course the people who wrote it were very clear that there were some tools that some people would - given a period of power in the congress - try to deny to the public, and so they added amendment that explicitly reminded the government that it cannot act in those areas. The Constitution is built around the concept that the government's powers over what you may or may not do it inherently limited to the things that are enumerated therein, and generally prohibited otherwise, with the states having all such other authority. This isn't a matter of "perspective," and it isn't true for certain tools, and false for other tools. If you think that "drones" (but not, say, chain saws) should be singled out for capricious bans by the federal government despite laws recently passed by the congress explicitly to the contrary, then you're completely missing the point.
Personally I'd say they were flying model aircraft not drones.
Semantic games like that show how completely unserious you are.
A matter decided upon, legislatively. at the municipal, county, and (rarely) state level. Not by capricious extra-legal, counter-constitutional fiat from a political appointee of the White House, as in the case at hand.
Stellar rays prove fibbing never pays. Embezzlement is another matter.
