...drastically less gun crimes than the US.
Replaced by other weapons of opportunity.
On the other hand, it's difficult to make child rearing easier without also making it more appealing. So the benefits of these programs have to be balanced against against the detriment of a larger number of babies, a larger population, and the long-term environmental and social impact.
So one possible, but impractical, solution might be something like giving all employees the full twelve weeks off every year, to be spent on whatever they wish. That'd be nice...
I thought this was a brilliant way of coming up with new shows and it seemed successful from my perspective, but I don't think they ever did it again.
Eshoo told CQ Roll Call she had a “sneaking suspicion” the Republicans were using the Internet freedom legislation as a pretext to implement their anti-regulatory agenda.
In other words, they're talking about net neutrality.
I'm also wondering how they're supposed to be funding more than a year's worth of development from ten people with only $160,000.
I didn't see any mention of a demo. Could you provide a link? Or do you mean the video? The video sells the concept, and that's good, and it's a good concept. But concepts are a dime a dozen.
If you mean molest you should really say molest. It's not like children are going to catch the contextual difference between touch and touch.
As far as this particular project is concerned: I make a point of only donating to teams that already have considerable experience and who I know can do the job well and in reasonable time. These people are not that. It's otherwise a good idea, but I don't think bankrolling the dreams of some college kids is really the best use of Kickstarter funding.
One thing I've noticed (read: pure anecdote) is that most people who are enthusiastic about their party don't behave much differently from sports fans of opposing teams. It doesn't really matter what their side does, what matters is which letter wins the game. Even on Slashdot I've confronted a few people who say "well my side never does x abhorrent behavior" when all of ten seconds worth of Google found the opposite.
This is insightful, but my experience in this last election cycle has led me to doubt that ten seconds worth of Google is actually worth anything. Certain figures (all right, Obama) are subject to fantastic amounts of criticism and with ten seconds on Google you could prove that they had stolen your car, raped your cat, and destroyed the sun with their laser eyes. On the other hand, five minutes on Google (looking into the story more deeply than most people would) will show you that that's all bullshit or has a deeper explanation.
The problem being that spending five minutes on Google to look into every one of the literally thousands of slanderous stories is just too much time. So after a while you begin to depend on the bias that you've developed: "Well it wasn't true the last dozen times, it's probably bullshit this time too."
That's terrible of course, it allows your favored guy to get away with things that he shouldn't, but with certain news organizations making their bread and butter on these sorts of slanderous stories, there's just too many of them to deal with them all in the serious way that they should be dealt.