Most chihuahua dog births are with C-section
Most chihuahua dog births are with C-section
Right, and the other candidateS WEREn't rotten at all.
Adblocker blocker is surely a deal-breaker. That reminds me - don't you think public unwillingness to pay for news causes a lot of clickbaity-ness of the news ? If "causes" is a strong word - at least it is a factor in prevention of popularity of serious news.
A small minority paying for online news won't matter - print is going down, and online news doesn't have enough paying subscribers. Idiots are a good market - they will watch advertisements, buy the advertised goods, and they need nice clickbait articles to visit again.
The "mankind changing for the better" nearly always happened during times of rising prosperity. Economic fears and stagnation brings out the worst in people.
Are people open to rational arguments? Yes, if cloaked in emotions : http://www.ted.com/talks/simon...
That is right , but it was invented and was most effective when most ways of interacting intensively with people far away was physically traveling with one's body to the far away location. Now with
1. international businesses with telephone and video conferences
2. 24-hour work time + 24-hour personal time
, those advantages matter a bit less. The disadvantages - of having to know various timezones to be able to inform people are surfacing more than earlier.
This is not to say universal time solves all problems. But this much is true that once tele-commuting becomes even more common where one just stays at a pleasant place and conduct business across the world at one's own schedule - some advantages of the current system vanish and some disadvantages glare more.
For now, it is easy to have multiple clocks on your watch / computer / phone for people who actually deal with different time-zones, and rest of the world doesn't give a damn.
I drink a 12oz bottle of Coke when I wake up every morning which is, hold on... 1.5c. Does that fall in the "just want to drink something" or "thirsty" category?
This is the entirely new "diabetes" category.
You might be right, but Amazon calls W-Deals a seller. That doesn't mean law will also call W-Deals a seller for this particular transaction.
It is crudely like Amazon calls your account number Prime, but a mathematician when provided with the number might find many prime factors of the account number and refuse to accept the account number as prime. A word has different meanings in different contexts, and especially for marketing many words are misused e.g. prime, privileged, Gold/Silver/Platinum, "Free", "Unlimited".
But I got paper cuts. Was I supposed to fuck the manual, or the manual was supposed to fuck me?
Printer was hard enough to setup so that I could print the manual for this activity.
Are you saying it doesn't work when done humorously ? My non-humerous attempt is below, working fine in preview at least.
Or does it not work when it is not someone else's thoughts?
...someone else's quoted thought
... Like this ?
Nobody thought? Why was someone watching a bad movie on an outdated media while "driving" then ?
Those who are in charge of communication for safety, are considered to have failed, when someone misunderstands. Professionals in safety critical fields don't hide behind pages of boring text - a fireman rescuing you from a burning building won't spell out the limitations and capabilities of the wall that is about to fall on your head, he'll order to get out of it or pull you out.
And statistical case doesn't have to be made to say it is unsafe. Burden of proof is Musk's.
No, Google has done nothing of the sort. Any update to the software invalidates all testing done till then - period. If it depends on the server side, server side code/data change also invalidates the tests. Now count the valid tests from Google and it turns out to be insignificant at any given moment.
Also, any manufacturer's cars are not sufficient in numbers right now to present an enticing target to hackers. Google has proved nothing in this regard - the hackability of the cars or the lack thereof.
Google definitely uses the phone number for learning connections between people.
Taxes, most taxes, are not in exchange of anything in particular. Specifically property taxes - You owe the tax, whether you use the land/house or not, whether you are in the country at the time or not, whether the municipal area does any work or not.
Similarly income taxes are not in exchange of anything - not of letting you use your money, not of allowing you to work, they just are owed whether you like it or not. Because they have a bigger stick than you, because most people support it, because they can, I would even say because it is good for all people.
Justification of taxes is the development of the surrounding area, amenities the government provides etc. but that is not what a tax is in exchange of.
First they came for the ethernet port, but I didn't speak up because I could live without one.
No, because it fails for man of the the _SAME_ reason's as Welfare yet is claimed to replace welfare to give all people a living wage for doing nothing
The semi-coherent interpretation I could form is
No, because it fails for many of the the _SAME_ reasons as welfare, yet is claimed to replace welfare to give all people a living wage for doing nothing
But even in this semi-coherent interpretation, the "yet" is misplaced - all the same reasons actually argue for replaceability of welfare by UBI, not against.
Consider : Is one of the reasons UBI fails for is that under that scheme there is no assurance of beneficiaries using the UBI for basic needs? That is not a valid reason it cannot replace welfare, because a lot of welfare has the exact same problem - that there is no assurance the welfare is being used for one's basic needs.
How can the same lack of assurance in welfare as well as in UBI cause UBI to be unable to replace welfare?
Put in one more way : Since UBI and welfare are equivalent in the lack of assurance department, one cannot be said to be unable to replace the other for this factor at least.
"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell