Comment Re:Maybe (Score 1) 118
It's not their value alone if they need society to realise it.
It's not their value alone if they need society to realise it.
So you get a leech living in your house that should be able to get a job paying for an apartment, and get no personal benefit. No equity, no repayment, nothing. Who would be so daft as to sign this agreement?
No other Van Helsing will do
It was obviously not intended to be published to the world. Once you're doing hostile penetration analysis, you've well beyond "fair and square".
Wasn't talking about the party, but the other guy who responded to this provided a nice example of the very silly claims many libertarians make on this front.
Amusing that so many people claim the Constitution as their banner and claim it represents their precise political views, when it predates basically all modern political discourse and their own views are so reprehensible. Amusing that the Libertarians might claim to be the same party as the Democratic-Republican Party, or the Federalist Party, and claim all sides of the First Party System as themselves.
Yeah, that at-best/at-worst thing is what I'm getting at. Something as generic as better science education is broadly awesome, and avoiding a sponsor (provided they're not a demanding sponsor) for that is pretty dumb. The at-worst concern is worth thinking about though, as would be potential "cultural rot" caused by accepting aid for now and possibly needing to pull back from it later should it head over to type-2.
I can imagine there might be good and bad reasons to part ways, and I'm wondering if he's explained himself somewhere.
If the DARPA involvement is just to encourage cleverness and the sciences, I don't think he has a leg to stand on (or his principles are WAY different than mine), but if DARPA is having the kids build specific technologies being used for military applications, it might be worth parting ways over it.
This is an interesting step; in general countries are a lot more strict on entering their territory than leaving it. There are some circumstances where you'd want to control exit (if someone is fleeing law enforcement for some reason, avoiding child custody or the like), but I wonder if that's the intent of this policy shift or if it's something else.
The high profile journals weed out sensationalist claims more often than not (part of being high-profile is having a finely tuned bullshit meter). The number of retractions are also a sign of strength, as the mechanisms forcing people to correct their errors are getting better. This isn't to claim that the process doesn't have room for improvement, but the cited examples are rubbish.
It kinda makes my point that you're willing to make that comparison, Godwin's law and all.
"Experience has proved that some people indeed know everything." -- Russell Baker