Do have gas heat? If so, it *is* a waste.
Only due to 60 votes being the "new normal" to get any legislation to a vote.
So it was only ramming through if we agree the GOP was *again* making egregious misuse of the filibuster. Otherwise, it's just business as usual for both sides.
In other words, the system gives gives enough advance warning so you know what you're about to gently bump into after screaming to a stop in a cloud of smoke. Or crash into, if the pavement happens to be wet.
Can a human do better? That's the real question...
The cost moderated the usage so much that they're mostly no longer enabled even if they're present. The remaining service will be shutting down completely at the end of this year.
99% of the time it does nothing. But that 1% it's a useful tool indeed.
Ah, that may be true with seatbelts, but not true with guns. There are 3 states in which a gun can exist:
1) Doing nothing
2) Being a useful tool
3) Being a danger to people you don't want it to be a danger to.
Seatbelts don't have a habit of accidentally killing people, or being so dangerous to possess that they're more likely to kill you or a member of your family than to be used successfully as a "useful tool" (in defense).
It is theft, but the damages involved are inconsequential. A formal warning by the officer to not do it again would have been a better solution.
It's about an 8.3A draw. It's not going to burn down the building, even if another such draw is happening. I'd be surprised if the breakers are rated for anything less than 25A, and wouldn't be surprised to see 40A breakers.
Paging the world's smallest violin, you're needed on board the waaaamublance.
Nope, polygraphs DO work....but only because people THINK they work.
They trick people into confessing things they wouldn't otherwise confess, because "the machine will find out" anyway and at least there may be some mercy if they voluntarily confess.
All bullshit, of course, but it does work....just not for the reasons we assume it does.
Fair enough. Apology accepted.
I will point out, though, that the majors are major because of proselytizing, and the minors are minors often because they do not. It's not that they're anachronisms (though the Druze and Zoroastrians certainly have long histories), but that their choice of interacting with the outside world necessarily limits their ability to become a major religion.
I'm not Jewish. I'm pointing out that your assertion that all religions "without exception" go for completely indoctrination when there are many that do not. Even your apology seems to be trying to hold your original view while barely admitting only a single caveat. The Druze and Zoroastrians are other examples of religions that do not actively seek to incorporate outsiders (and sometimes refuse to accept those that independently wish to join), and who will even often hide their religious affiliation from those they do not know. Other religions remain small not because they were or are oppressed, but simply because they don't feel the need to expand. Your absolutist view on religion is colored based on a few large ones and does not match the real world.
I live in Paris... the waiters are fine. The tourists are a pain in the ass.
I bet your economy likes the $ they spend, though...
The content of contracts is legally regulated. You cannot, for example, sell yourself or your children into slavery. Any asset-entanglement contract such as you suggest would involve time with an attorney, possibly adding a not-inconsequential cost and adding to the potential burden to the courts down the line, as well as probably requiring a section of law to deal with such contracts when they are drawn up for terms of marriage, thus requiring the presence of marriage law anyway.
Further, rights accorded to spouses go far beyond simple asset sharing. There are hospital visitation rights, powers of attorney, and inheritance priorities, things that *can* be set by contract but are accorded a default status in marriage law based on traditions that go back centuries. While some of these powers were traditionally held by the males of the family (control over the wife, possessions going to eldest son, etc.), they've been balanced as females have been handed the same powers over time.
Imagine if you get word that your spouse was suddenly hospitalized and you race there, only to be prohibited from entering the room until you can produce your notarized contract that says you're allowed by your spouse to go in, something which you cannot find despite tearing apart your domicile while hoping you'll be there when your spouse awakens, and your original attorney is no longer available. Later, your spouse is on life support, effectively brain-dead, and you know your spouse wouldn't want to continue living like that *but you never got that legally attached to the contract*. You have to wait for the body to finally give out, days, weeks, or months later, and in the meantime, hospital bills are stacking up that you may have to pay, adding to the emotional burden. And then after your spouse dies, whatever possessions are left over go to...who? You can't find your contract, thereby having no way of proving asset entanglement.
For decades, the Supreme Court has required that the state show a compelling interest when it places limits on marriage. This came about most significantly in the anti-miscegenation cases of the 1940s through 1960s, culminating in Loving v. Virginia, and numerous others where the courts have placed limits on how the state can limit marriage, but it has never gone so far as to say that the state has no interest in the marriage of people within its jurisdiction.
Indeed, it has said the opposite, that the state does have a compelling interest in marriage, that marriage is one of the very foundations of our society in that it encourages the procreation of offspring necessary to perpetuate the society, and that the state may take reasonable steps to thus encourage marriage or, in relatively rare cases, to block marriage, such as when untreated diseases are present that may be spread to an unwitting partner. However, it has also placed significant limits on the state's powers over marriage, recognizing, among other things, that marriage need not lead to procreation to be valid.
The state does have an interest in providing a default framework for something that is so ingrained in our society that judges spend entire careers overseeing cases involving it. That framework, though it should exist, should be the minimum required to allow the institution to exist without unduly burdening those partaking in it.
There's not much going on in the way of Jewish proselytizing, and most Jews, including senior members of the more restrictive sects, don't want it to happen at all.
No blue carpet or gold curtain rods?