@pusher_robot's banner p

pusher_robot

PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 23:45:12 UTC

				

User ID: 278

pusher_robot

PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 23:45:12 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 278

IMO the coin flopped because most register tills couldn't accommodate any more coin types, so cashiers never provided them as change. Now that the penny is going away, that opens up a slot. There's also now no reason not to retire the $1 bill.

I still like my idea for a five-dollar coin better, but this would be an improvement on that status quo if it also retires nickles.

I didn't watch the show. What motivates such a character to attend Starfleet Academy of all things?

That's a strange case. The constitutionality of such a law seems dubious to me under Lawrence.

I was born before the 90s, and went on my own walking to and from my elementary school every day, at 6 years old. It was considered a normal thing back then.

Same, in the 80's, I walked about a mile home from school in first grade (though I got a ride to school). That year, we moved to only about a half mile from the school, and I never got another ride to or from school until my friends were old enough to drive.

I think both the pilot and the episode itself does enough to bring that background. You could, I guess, watch Skin of Evil after the pilot to cement data's personality and account for the disappearance of Yar, or Elementary, Dear Data to show his more whimsical side (which also sets up the clever Moriarty episode later). The good thing about TNG generally though is that it was conceived and written as an almost 100% episodic show, so while episodes can benefit from familiarity with the characters and the world lore, it is generally not necessary. That's one reason it was very popular in syndication.

Appropriate age is going to depend a lot on maturity and attention span, but certainly I'd think no later than 13. I'd probably skip TOS entirely to begin with and start with the TNG pilot. Then skip to Measure of a Man, then some more plums from seasons 3-7, and the finale. If it takes, he'll fill in the rest of the episodes on his own volition and want more.

Most people take it for granted that the ideal utopian future is one of perpetual peace. But why should that be the case? We could openly embrace our identity as an Empire in the mold of the Roman Empire. End birthright citizenship, and make citizenship by blood only. Embrace war as a standard way of life. We will fight perpetual wars, to make ourselves stronger. Some die off, but the rest become even stronger.

Starship Troopers explored this concept seriously as well (disregard the movie, which may be fun but has little to do with the book). In the book, the franchise is only extended to people who undertake hazardous and/or unpleasant duty on behalf of the human federation. A right to be able to do this is guaranteed, and they will even invent difficult tasks for someone with disabilities, but the point is to ensure real skin in the game for the franchise-holders. The book also discusses the concept of human expansion as a sort of evolutionary force.

Little sugar but much bread, and likely the bread was filled with substantial grit from threshing and milling.

Trad dances such as Irish Cèilidh also seem to be surviving

I think problems stemming from capitalism are going to be hard to solve from a conservative point of view. Admit that capitalism causes it and you're giving ground to the communists.

There's a nationalist-shaped hole in the discourse since WWII.

No, I'm reducing American citizenship to the terms outlined in the Constitution and US law, which is the only definition that matters.

You're the one who brought up citizenship, which is irrelevant. OP was not talking about citizenship but affinity.

Being inclusive of Puerto Ricans, which as a characteristically magnanimous white person I am more than happy to do, should not require excluding me. Since it evidently does mean that in reality, I am now shifted to kicking Puerto Rico out of the United States.

I enjoyed it as much as I've enjoyed all the recent halftime shows, which is to say, not at all. I liked the music slightly more than the mumbled hip hop we've gotten lately, but the thing being in Spanish without even subtitles really did feel like a fuck you.

It immediately brings to mind consummate bureaucrat Buck Turgidson:

President Muffley: General Turgidson, I find this very difficult to understand. I was under the impression that I was the only one in authority to order the use of nuclear weapons.

Gen. Turgidson: That's right, sir, you are the only person authorized to do so. And although I, uh, hate to judge before all the facts are in, it's beginning to look like, uh, General Ripper exceeded his authority.

I'll be shocked if authorities identified the man that bit the agent's finger off and did not charge him.

Women, actually, and they have been identified. Federal charges were filed, but I couldn't find any indication of state or local charges. WRT to other things, unfortunately I don't have references to the places I read about them and searching is useless with the terms involved. How about this as a compromise though - I would concede requiring officers to not conceal their identity if protestors were also required not to conceal their identities. Undoubtedly a big reason for lack of charges is an inability to identify the individuals involved.

"Democracy" is a glittering generality, and not even a very glittering one at that. Democracy isn't an unlimited good after all.

Example, the man who threw a sandwich at an ice officer got no charges. The man who bit an agent's finger off does not appear to have been charged. Have local officials charged any of the individuals in Minneapolis who have been engaging in threats, assault, battery, property damage, and disorderly conduct incessantly? Even a single one?

The DHS has referred multiple cases for charges related to threats against the families of ICE agents. In Portland, children and spouses were repeatedly harassed and threatened. No charges were filed. In multiple other cities, protests outside agent's homes, engaging in harassment and disorderly conduct. No charges were filed then either.

Why not? Because it's wrong. Because it's wicked and counter to the fundamental dignity of Mankind.

The counterargument is that you are not really reckoning with the real-world costs of the politics you are advocating. You position is that you are content with a larger number of innocent people raped and murdered because you find it morally distasteful to make assumptions about individuals, even when they are warranted. It's a fairly extreme position, so you can't expect to win the argument by declaring the other side is "wrong" as though that is fully explicatory.

The tradeoff isn't worth it, especially when there are alternatives: pursue the threats against agents, investigate, throw the book at the culprits, whatever.

These aren't plausible alternatives when local officials refuse to enforce state and local law. ETA: And federal judges show little willingness to allow prosecutions.

Disagree - diners have always served mostly local customers. The market has been for food done quickly with minimal service and without pretense, at reasonable prices [ETA: and where it's normalized to dine alone]. As such I think three things primarily killed diners:

  1. Frozen meals - I think a lot of people have forgotten how big a deal the introduction of TV Dinners was. For the first time, you could have a prepared meal in your own home, with no cooking required, at a price competitive with or even cheaper than cooking from scratch. Prior to this, if you wanted anything more complicated than a cheese sandwich and didn't want to or couldn't cook, your only option was a diner. Afterwards, you could have diner-quality meals at a substantially lower price, in the comfort of your own home, and all you needed was a freezer you probably had already and a toaster oven.

  2. Fast food restaurants - A major appeal of the diner was a hot meal you could get quickly and cheaply, and sit and eat at your leisure. Fast food restaurants offered hot meals even more quickly and cheaply, and many built indoor dining areas so you could sit down and relax. You were never rushed and dining alone is fine. Granted, the menu was much more limited, but it ended up capturing a lot of the remaining people that wanted a simple and cheap hot meal and didn't want to make frozen dinners.

  3. Bar food - I think a not insubstantial amount of diner traffic, especially the 24-hour variety, was from bar patrons desiring some food to soak up the alcohol, when most bars would offer popcorn or pretzels at most. Now many bars have a TurboChef convection oven to heat up all kinds of frozen snacks, and many have a full kitchen to serve up pub grub, so if you are drinking and want some food, you can just stay at the bar and eat.

That's why I think most diners now survive mostly on breakfast, which is under-served by all those categories.

I can definitely say that any LE shooting someone who is restrained and is not pointing a gun at someone is outside of it is outside of it.

By that rubric, if I yell "I'm going to shoot you!" and point something that is an exact facsimile of a gun at a police officer but isn't, and they shoot me, that is incompetent on their part, even though it would require psychic powers on their behalf to know the difference.

I think the problem here is that you seem to very much want to remove any subjectivity from the rubric, but this is just logically impossible without leading to absurd outcomes like the above. Subjectivity requires us to examine things like, even if there was no gun, did they believe there was? If so, why? Was that belief reasonable even if incorrect? If not, just how unreasonable was it? In this case, it hinges on factors like what the person may have said, how they may have acted, whether or not an accidental discharge took place, etc. These factors would determine whether criminal charges are appropriate, if so which ones, and whether and which workplace disciplinary actions would be appropriate.

Yes. It's adjacent to "hiding one's power level", as even if you have some political beliefs, you understand there's nothing positive that can be accomplished by talking about them in social situations. And in many cases, simply choosing to talk about it less actually causes you to care less, and happiness increases as a result.

I don't know, but that's at least relevant information.

Whether this charge is actually true can be debated separately, with no reference to Pretti's character or past actions.

This is not correct. If you're trying to assess the reasonableness of an officer's belief that someone's actions created an fear of imminent death or great bodily harm, you would have to take into account knowledge about that person's behavior and past actions that the officer actually possessed at the time of the decision point.