If she’s not into yoga?

I mean personally, unless there are ways to allow ecological interactions to occur, in against the wall simply because of the inhibition of said interactions and how it could effect environments. If Provided says for such interactions I would be all for the wall. If I want to keep people off my property, I put up a fence and have a guard dog. Same principle.

I would never aim a gun a something I didn’t intend to kill, however that doesn’t mean I want to or enjoy killing it. As a hunter, I shoot deer with arrows, I don’t want to take the life of the animal, I want the meat and want population control. I don’t want to kill it but I fully intend to and will do so. Same thing with home defense. I don’t want to kill another person, but I will if I have to

It’s okay strongsad I agree with you

@thekaylapup the statistic you are thinking of is overstayed visas, which accounts for forty ... one percent I believe. Regardless, it is below half meaning that it is not the majority.

heck of build list my friend. I happily stand corrected. My only concerns would be
1) the case seems to have little ventilation so I would fear over heating especially when running AMD hardware (I know this has been improved upon but it is just an experience that I've had that I can't forget about no matter how hard I try)
2) the CPU has reviews that claim that it only reaches a 40 fps (still better than consoles for sure though)
3) Very small amount of RAM especially if you intend to game on it (easily remedied though)
4) Very small amount of hard drive space especially if you intend to game on it (easily remedied though as well)
But as I stated, I stand corrected and I appreciate the build list...very viable option for a budget gaming PC that I may indeed offer to a friend searching for such a computer.

And he could’ve gotten his mother’s genes for being super tall.

Again, I’m not saying they should drop the check now. I’m just saying there is some plausibility and mathematical backing to it.

It would be costly but a $729,000 monthly budget means yearly you spend $8,748,000. So for five years, that’s $43,000,000. So if the plates last 5 years then there is an argument to be made. Also, an argument to be made because it would be coming from green sources as well.

If you have a monthly (emphasis on monthly) bill of at least $729,000, and according to the article, installation of these around the DC circle would cost $200,000, an argument could be made that over the lifetime of the plates, it would end up saving a good deal of money. I’m not saying that it’s completely factual. It would depend on the number of lights each one could be hooked up to and how many sets would need installed, etc. and it would require more math than I can do on my phone right now. I’m merely saying that an argument could be made that it would save money in the long term. That’s all.

Also malnutrition in early childhood development can cause height stunting so there’s a chance the father didn’t absorb food properly during the early ages of his own life.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/hilarybrueck/2016/11/18/pavegen-energy-generating-sidewalk/amp/
Estimated to cost $200,000 for installation.
Using $.08 for cost per kilowatt hour, with 75000 lights in DC, you’re looking at a cost of over $729,000 a month on electricity.
So a one time cost of $200,000 thrice would still be cheaper than the monthly operating cost of a street lighting system of purely purchase electricity.

I’d need to see a build list in order to believe a tale such as this.

@funkmasterrex even though the PDF was created at that time, very few people know got to convert from PDF to word. And it is the millennial generation that is being asked how to do this (professionals who are between 20 and 30, not people who are 10-20)
I worked in IT and at Best Buy and got this question weekely.

The question is, if you are @vodka, are you constantly drunk or have you built a tolerance up to yourself?

you’d want to know so you can make as large of a profit as possible while also staying within the confines of the average persons spending money. It’s considerate business.

Also @gummy, guys dont typically wear things as tight as leggings or things like short shorts or short skirts. And at my school they had the same rules. But when the guys at school thought it’d be funny to disobey the girls side of the dress code, they got in trouble as well. It was just labeled girls and guys because of who typically wore those clothes.

I’m sorry but there was no clarification that a fetus is not a human. I thought we clarified that it is a “clump of living cells” and has a genetic make up of a human by the 26 chromosomes. Similar to how the molecular makeup of aluminum is still aluminum no matter if it’s a can or a ball. Its still aluminum. So thus the life is a human life. From the point of the first cell division. This is the foundation of the belief and if you disagree with it then I will have to respectfully agree to disagree with you.

I agree with you on most everything down to the last statement. The difference between you forcing me to have an abortion and me stoping you from having one is that by forcing me to have one you are encroaching on another human’s unalienable right to life. Whereas the latter of the examples is me preserving that human’s unalienable right to life.
(Edited to fix spelling of “Whereas”)

And after I have stated my point let me ask you this question. If someone is in a coma and the doctors say, it is going to be expensive but the patient will for sure 100% awaken from the coma, is it morally correct for you to ask for the plug to be pulled from the machine, unltimately killing the patient.

“no they shouldn’t be required to continue to sustain life“ because of the fundamental difference between these two instances. One has little to no chance of regaining these functions of stimuli response and the other will almost indefinitely develop these functions. One is ending a life prematurely by the hands of a human being and the other is allowing the process of death to complete after it has already been initiate by an another force. It’s not a matter of whether one should allow the end of life of a human being after an accident, it is the matter of whether one should end the life of a human being by its own hand and still feel morally correct.

@guest_ I did not avoid the question asked. It is clearly marked at the beginning of my statement. Here it is again for you “no they shouldn’t be required to continue to sustain life”. You must have misinterpretated my points so let me reexplain them. A brain dead patient, that of which doctors state have little to no chance of returning consciousness, does not meet the criteria of life due to their lack of response to stimuli. This means that their nerves do not react to the changes done to them. This is why pupils fix and dilate and reflexes disappear. Now in a developing fetus, nerves are created and develop within the first month. The neural tube is completely formed by the end of the second month. This means it meets the criteria of life. Now, because it happened last time I will reiterate to ensure it is known. My answer to your questions is..

My answer to @guest_ is this: no they shouldn’t be required to continue to sustain life. 1) in most cases, there has been a either a DNR option presented to the patient or a discussion between the patient and the family that says what they would want. in cases that this hasn’t occurred, it is a very grey area. But if the person has discussed or opted to receive no additional care you must follow their desires because it is their choice (which is key in this debate here because the baby did not make the choice). 2) in most cases, doctors do not discuss pulling the plug unless there is no brain activity. With the lack of brain activity, they have no functions that the brain would control and one of those functions is the acclimation and response to stimuli. This response to stimuli is a part of the definition of life and thus they biologically do not meet the criteria to be considered alive.

A parasite is still a living thing so we agree that it is indeed a living thing. It is as you call it a “human” parasite so we agree that it is indeed a human. So it can be reasoned that it is indeed a human life and thus still falls under the statute that you cannot end a human life prematurely by the hands of man.