I’m sure there have been minor incidents, but as far as I know Sikhism comes to mind as a religion that doesn’t have blood on its hands.
I’m sure there have been minor incidents, but as far as I know Sikhism comes to mind as a religion that doesn’t have blood on its hands.
It’s a monarchy… So yeah…
Cat probability: 98.3%
deleted by creator
Is this the same Bob Ballard that found the Titanic and the Bismark?
I agree, we all have search engines and if someone doesn’t understand a word or phrase they can learn it on their own. Brilliant write up!
Was this the root cause??? Hahahaha
It will be very difficult for someone over the internet to help you troubleshoot without some type of schematic of what you’re trying to accomplish.
Certainly could if it had good contact. If it was air gapped (held up by hair), it could be an effective barrier for shorter wavelengths.
I took some antenna theory courses back in the day and yes, you are correct. Some frequencies reflect off the upper atmosphere so there would be a longer effective range at higher incident angles (going into the top of the head) but it wouldn’t completely block radio waves. Going from memory, the wavelengths that reflect off the upper atmosphere are long enough that a tin foil hat wouldn’t cause much interference anyways.
TLDR: Fashionable, but not practical.
Love your optimism
You’re right. I was being very Ameri-centric. I subconsciously interchange free speech and the first amendment even though they are not equal.
I do believe that individuals and private institutions should have this right to react though. I don’t agree with how it was used in this situation, but I absolutely believe the hospital should have the right to terminate someone based on the opinions they openly share.
If this same employee was sharing an anti-vax opinion I would want the hospital to be able to remove them from the role.
That is not what free speech means.
Free speech means the government cannot prohibit free speech. A private institution can take any lawful action they want in retaliation/reaction.
I agree that it really sucks that saying something true can get you fired, but this isn’t an infringement of the first amendment.
The interesting thing about the court is their power comes from our belief in their legitimacy. They don’t have any repercussions if the executive and legislature completely ignores their rulings.
It’s a double edged sword. If they allow this to happen, democracy crumbles under a new admin. If they do anything to deter authoritarians getting into power is technically anti-democratic too.
Either this admin undermines the belief in democracy by stopping an authoritarian administration to participate in elections or they allow the authoritarians to run and hope the electorate aren’t complete idiots (in a voting system rigged towards the authoritarians via the electoral college).
This is the way.
Command statement = an action
Question statement = a status
It is a politically savvy and ethically correct move. Really nice when those line up.
The argument I’m making is that we should not call them chemicals when they don’t have the capacity to make chemical reactions.
An analogy could be how we use the word weed. We call unwanted plants weeds. If there is mint growing in your yard and you don’t want it, it’s a weed. If you sell your house and the next owner likes it that mint is not a weed anymore. It’s still mint (element) but no longer a weed (chemical).
You make a good point. I should have said “things in the plasma state” should not be considered chemicals.
Is that the same story as the movie by the same name?