Hear hear! Whenever society picks out a particular minority group and says, "THESE are the ones it is OK to look down on and mistreat" it just makes me want to defend and support that group.
These days I am a strong supporter of furries, never-Trump Republicans, and trans folk.
One.
I'm thinking of a comic made to tell the story of a relationship, culminating in a wedding proposal.
The definition of success is different for different cases.
If two states disagree, what alternative would you suggest? "Flip a coin and move on" or "Just give in to the other side" are solutions that are likely to be abused: one rogue state can wreck havoc by making unreasonable demands. Going to war over it seems worse than spending millions in court. The courts ARE our inexpensive, fair way of resolving disputes (even if they aren't as inexpensive as we might like).
This article starts off as a response to another article, but doesn't link to the article it is talking about! I found that frustrating and poor form, community-wise.
Yes, that is exactly what he is saying. Yes, it is completely absurd and would undermine the bedrock principles of our legal system. However, apparently somewhere between 3 and 6 members of the US Supreme Court may be seriously considering it.
(To be fair, he does claim that this absolute immunity would go away if half of the House and 2/3 of the Senate decided to impeach the President.)
Yes. The average cost of cancer treatment is around $150,000 USD here and expensive cases can be much more.
Here is my perspective on the answer to your question:
Our government is not functional. It is not that it doesn't "want" a healthy work force, but that it isn't capable of setting any sort of a policy.
The last time the US made any meaningful change in healthcare policy was under Obama. My impression of what happened is that there was a brief (2 yr) moment when the Presidency, House, and Senate were all controlled by the same party. The Democrats passed "health reform" which was basically the Republican health care reform package from 4 years earlier.
In the 13 years since then, the only Republican position on health care has been that Obama's "ACA" law is "bad". There is literally no suggestion of what else would be better. (I'm not counting the anti-abortion laws as "health care" -- they are seen here as a moral issue, not a health care one.) The Democrats' position has been a mix of "we shouldn't let the Republicans take us back to something WORSE!" and "the whole system is broken and needs to be replaced".
We have two problems. First, our government is structured so that it cannot easily accomplish anything, at least without cooperation between the two opposed parties. Secondly, one of the two parties is insane and wants to destroy the government (and has enough electoral support to win almost half the time).
How concerned should I be?
What are the unspecified policies the developer claims that the company has failed to uphold? Who is this particular developer, and how much should I trust them? (I don't follow nginx development at all.)
I celebrate the fact that open source licenses exist specifically to allow people to make a fork like this when they have disagreements! But I don't know enough about this particular case to decide how it should affect my own plans.
Under the government's theory, in this case, I cannot understand how the Google App Store is a monopoly, but the Apple App Store is not. Can anyone explain that to me?
It really needs a fourth block that just says "Python".
(For those who don't get the joke, in Python the way that one exits a loop over an iterator is to keep going until the iterator throws an exception. It sounds dumb at first, but in truth, that's only if you think that exceptions are incredibly heavyweight compared to other operations.)
Wait for a passing blimp. Project the bat signal on the blimp.
Because Donald Trump is above the law -- laws simply don't apply to him.
(Or at least that is how much of the country is acting, INCLUDING the US Supreme Court.)