Honor Harrington? The first 67 books in the series were okay -- the ones that took place when Harrington was still a mere human. The last 589, however, have been a bit of a stretch. You know, the ones where she becomes a master space-yachtsman; a martial arts master; acquires a bionic arm; a bionic eye; an elite cadre of crack-shot martial arts masters bodyguards; a super-intelligent, super-empathic, telepathic, vicious pet "treecat,;" when her friends, relatives and everyone around her acquire these same "treecats;" becomes CEO of a planet-spanning multi-billion dollar corporation, fabulously wealthy Duchess of a land on a medieval planet, and High Admiral of the galaxy's most formidable space navy, close confidant of The Queen -- all the while boning the Prime Minister (while the PM's wife looks on approvingly because, well, she's Honor Harrington (see above)).
You wouldn't download a kidney, would you?
They can share some, all, or none of the sites. I really did a bad job explaining that.
If they shared some or all sites then they wouldn't be a separate 50 sites, no?
If strain A differs from strain B at 50 sites, and strain B from strain C at a separate 50 sites, A and C can have anywhere from 0-100 differences.
Oh, well. You're welcome. I'm still confused, though. If strain A differs from strain B at 50 sites, and strain B from strain C at a separate 50 sites, then isn't it true that A and C have exactly 100 differences?
it's still within the same order of magnitude.
You two are talking about different things. You're talking about certain types of intercourse given that exactly one subject is infected, and exactly one subject is uninfected. Anonymous Coward is talking about certain types of intercourse given that both subjects are members of the general population.
If strain A differs from strain B at 50 sites, and strain C from strain A at a separate 50 sites, A and C can have anywhere from 0-100 differences.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if strain C differs from strain A at 50 sites, then isn't it true that A and C have exactly 50 differences? In other words, it's false that A and C can have anywhere from 0-100 differences?
Smug, arch, deliriously self-absorbed, and given to carrying around precious little pet dogs like he was some kind of eccentric Bond Villain. That he would pay Slashdot to interview him -- and that he would be so out of touch as to think there were any genuine tech decision makers left on Slashdot -- comes as no surprise at all.
To be fair, any corporation would have done the same thing. If Pepsi (say) discovered a Twitter account that repeatedly says that Pepsi tastes horrible, and it turned out that the owner of the account was one of their employees, it wouldn't matter if that employee never used his or her real name--he or she would be canned faster than, well...
I think one difference might be that Pepsi can't use all the power of government to reveal who the tweeter was.
Regulation are also costing them. I'm sure lot of hotel would be fine just not having those pesky regulation getting in the way (like you know fire protection, hygiene, using legit employees, insurances,
Think "barriers to entry."
Trying to create a better society is a very different thing from thinking you've invented one.
Can you explain how? I mean, it seems to me that they are inextricably linked. Suppose Mr. Legislator wants to try to create a better society. His necessary first step is to hypothesize how to do so. Once he has his hypothesis he has two choices--either evaluate whether the hypothetical society is better than current society or try it. You've forestalled the former, so he has to proceed with the latter. Once it's tried, he must evaluate the results. The possible evaluations are the hypothetical society is worse than ex ante, it's equal, or it's better. You've forestalled the latter. It seems to me that the only way you allow a person to try to create a better society is if he a priori is doomed to failure.
The 2nd Amendment applies to what is now the National Guard. We never updated the Constitution as we adopted a "standing army" policy.
The Supreme Court of the United States would beg to differ.
I keep hearing that. However, here are all of the economic planks of the 1928 Socialist Party Platform, and how they have fared legislatively. Smells like socialism to me.
'It's not possible. Space is dangerous. It's expensive. There are unquantified risks. Combine all of those under one umbrella; you cannot establish a free market capitalization of that enterprise.'"
I feel the same way about settling the western United States. Oregon is dangerous. It's expensive. There are unquantified risks. Combine all of those under one umbrella; you cannot establish a free market capitalization of that enterprise.
"You have died of dysentery."
Yeah sorry dude but there hasn't been a judge, founding father, legislator or even constitutional clause since foundation thats actually said this. This is a fantasy of the tea party whackys.
Does Chief Justice Marshall count? He once said, "This government is acknowledged by all, to be one of enumerated powers. The principle, that it can exercise only the powers granted to it, would seem too apparent, to have required to be enforced by all those arguments, which its enlightened friends, while it was depending before the people, found it necessary to urge; that principle is now universally admitted." I'm pretty sure he's not a tea party whacky. How about Chief Justice William Rehnquist? He's the one who wrote the majority opinion when striking down the Gun Free School Zone Act in United States v. Lopez.
The index does not measure, and has nothing to say, about the main topics at hand - civil liberties and human rights - so it doesn't refute the binary guy's claims even one bit. In fact, it's almost completely unrelated to his claims.
And here is Freedom House's 2013 annual survey of freedom. In it you'll find the United States rated as "Free" (most free of three categories) in freedom status, "1" (most free of seven categories) in political rights, and "1" (most free of seven categories) in civil liberties.