I'm 27 now and I feel the same way. I still think I won't end up with kids with time running short but I'm an uncle to two boys and a friends daughter calls me uncle. I just hope I have enough money to send them all on adventures. So I really hope what the gp says is true. Though it will be harder to have just the right kids books laying about.
Try asking you uncles why they say X before you share that diatribe. It'll help to temper your arguments with their perspective of how some particular inspector wouldn't even talk to them about an exception to a rule which maybe isn't applicable to this one of five locations. Seriously it wasn't till FEMA that you mentioned organizations people bad mouthing government employees might, Might, refer to. So as worded your talk will fall on deaf ears.
You aren't. I really like it but the disconnect between old style apps and the new style is jarring. The new apps and interface would be great on a tablet but feels clunky on my old laptop with a bad track pad. Also searching has been compartmentalized so to do some searches you need to type Win+w and know why you search is blank. Of course Win+r is still there so in practice its pretty easy to avoid.
I think there is something there. My 13 year old sister does not want a Facebook. I got her to get a g+ thinking 4 way video chat would be just her thing and she posted for a bit but she and her friends prefer Skype); the AIM of today. Ten years of that sort of success and whatever is HN then will be talking about FB the way HN speaks of Yahoo now.
I love this argument. It needs to become a reflexive and memetic response whenever anyone places someone in a damned-if-you-do situation for improving their position.
He's an extremely visible character expressing medical opinions on a regular basis to a large portion of the US population, shouldn't he have already done his research instead of being a tool? Does the past no longer exist, no such thing as "damned because he did?"
Gupta's defense is the sort of defense that will reach people like my mother convincing them that marijuana is not evil and has real medical uses. That outcome is a good thing and I do not wish any harm to his reputation now because it will be against my interest and I'm hoping/assuming having "done the research" this time will give persons like you ammo for pushing him to defend his position in the future.
I don't think the past goes away but generally I'd rather not condition people to not admit mistakes. And here I'd rather win now than be right now. Then maybe be right in the future.
you sounding real crazy right now... giving false scientific opinions when you make a living as a medical 'educator' because its better for you personally is cool now?
Dude coulda, woulda, shoulda been surgeon general with that much influence i would expect this dude to actually scientifically analyze stuff before giving his scientific evaluation.
He deserves some credit for having fessed up to being wrong.
On other topics, especially in economics, the punditry is full of people who have been hilariously wrong for years, having made predictions a long time ago that have been clearly incorrect, and who still have never once even hinted that their models were wrong.
Yes, Gupta should have done his research earlier. But compared to a lot of the scum in the media, he is basically a saint. He deserves to be praised, if only to encourage others to follow his lead and admit when they were wrong.
>I know what you will say in response though - it is only optional for now right?
No! It's de facto censorship. As the game goes the "smart" choice will become agreeing to the censorship while keeping a vpn or something to route about it for fear of having your record requested during divorce proceedings or some thing like that. Maybe for fear the list would be leaked . It wouldn't look good for a teacher to be on the wrong list.
Making it illegal would be one thing but it sounds like this would damage the internet itself in the UK.
for fear of having your record requested during divorce proceedings or some thing like that. Maybe for fear the list would be leaked . It wouldn't look good for a teacher to be on the wrong list.
Interesting point. People want to look at porn, yet keep it a secret. Why? If there is nothing wrong with it then why should someone care?
Are teachers not allowed to look at porn? Why not?
Can porn use be used against a husband in a divorce case? How?
You are making is sound like porn can be something unhealthy or negative? If it was not unhealthy and nothing negative was caused by it - then why these examples?
It almost sounds like you are making a case of why people should have a tool to keep it out of their homes. Why should people have to hide the fact that they want to look at porn?
Everyone of course already knows the answer. Porn can and does have negative consequences (of varying degrees) for most. Therefore, it is taboo in society. Everyone knows that the porn industry exploits women. It uses and abuses them. It is derogatory toward them. You see things like "barely legal" posted all over porn ads. So many men view porn, and they all try to come up with reasons that it is good and healthy - but everyone knows deep down that it is not. The pathetic industry will fight tooth and nail against any kind of legislation opposing it. They will cite freedom of speech and every other possible interpretation of anything they can get their hands on but these losers really just are all about money. They don't care about the lives they ruin. Men are still in power and ultimately give the industry the nod - not because they are doing the right thing, but because they are hooked and guilty themselves so they allow the false justifications to continue.
Porn is a devil - Everyone knows it at some level.
I mostly agree with your penultimate paragraph. But in answer to the why people should want to hide their porn habits: it is enough that other people would judge a person for porn, or any other habit, to discourage open sharing. For instance, I smoke weed very infrequently and think this is okay but it's not something I would be okay being open about.
Why didn't you make the circle constant a circle in your manifesto? I'm not sure but it seems the function composition symbol could be safely reused without confusion or perhaps a larger circle with a drawn radius. Wouldn't a circle have avoided some of the Tau criticisms?
The major problem is that a circle is too ambiguous a symbol; you'd need to add a notch or line or something to make it clear that you're referencing a constant. And when you do that, it becomes harder to write.
I always favored a variation on ◷, something like ◯̶ or ◯̵ or ○̵. Unfortunately, combined glyphs are representationally very unstable.
Because we'd like to meet our family directly at the gate?
I like your argument but meeting family at the gate was one of my favorite things as a child. And it won't be enough unless I can arbitrarily check through security to meet my family.
True, my response was a bit muddled by replying, maybe, too broadly to the question about what we're upset about. I changed the subject and I'm sorry to have made that mistake.
