Is this the same Bob Ballard that found the Titanic and the Bismark?
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!
Well, not that shocked…
Looks like forced perspective. I think the hawk isn’t looking at the little bird, but from our angle it looks like they’re face to face, so we assume they are much closer than they are.
What makes a man turn neutral?
Personally, I don’t care how much someone accrues in their life. I do think there should be a cap on inheritance. Peg that cap to some multiple of the minimum wage, let’s say 1million, then if billionaires want to pass on more than $7.25 million they need to raise the minimum wage.
Tax 'em when they die and move on.
Missed opportunity for 'Ray’gan.
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).
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.
Hydrogen and Helium are elements, I guess it depends on what your definition of a chemical is.
The reason I’m saying plasma is not a chemical is because it is too energetic to make atom to atom bonds which I feel is the basis for chemistry. If something cannot interact chemically I feel we should not consider it a chemical.
Please note that I did not look up any formal definitions, just expressing my reasoning for my argument. (Aka I’m probably wrong).
I think plasma isn’t a chemical since the elements can’t form molecules. So the sun and lightning aren’t chemicals.
But we can’t get a database for firearms?
Hard to tell if this is a proposal to fight over hardware or an offer for free stuff.
I choose to believe the former because it makes me chuckle more.
What is the easiest way to look that information up?
Can someone provide a summary on what this means? I thought there were malicious exploits in this. Why is it back up and the perpetrator unbanned?
Yay! We get to rename the drink “Irish Car Bomb” to “MAGA Tantrum”. At least something good came out of all this.
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.