Nah, if Google maps says it takes 10 hours, then it takes 10 hours with stops unless you’re in the bottom 10% of traffic (such as if you’re a truck towing a trailer).
If you’re like most people going 5 to 10 mph over, then you’ll beat Google maps time by about 15 minutes per 2 hours of drive time without stopping.
I disagree, because there are some fugly people out there. Boobs are certainly no longer good boobs when the nipple is below her belly button.
I disagree with that analogy. There’s a very noticable difference between how the cars goes (and sounds) among those fuel types. They may all get you to your destination, but the experience is moderately different.
And maybe that actually makes it a good analogy. I’m not really sure.
And even within imax, there’s differing qualities of the projector. It’s all quite complicated and seems to be intentionally obfuscated.
Being friendly is far more effective than trying to punish people to make them agree with you. Especially when there’s no immediate and obvious consequence of their individual actions.
I wouldn’t say that at all. Chernobyl was so much worse than this. It wasn’t a single first line supervisor who asked one worker to do something who said no at first.
They’d asked multiple nuclear plants to perform that test. Been told that it was not safe to perform multiple times. They finally got an upper management individual at one plant to agree to it. Then they had challenges completing the test and due to plant characteristics that were not apparent to the operators (as well as violating other procedures) the event occurred.
The premise of chernobyl is a series of systemic failures of barriers. Not an addition of a single step not specified in a maintenence procedure.
It doesn’t void the whole process. It may very slightly increase the degree to which it’s easier to launder money (I’m not convinced on that aspect since the money already originated from within the banking system).
Rather it prioritizes people’s right to their own property.
What you’re saying makes sense to me if you’re talking about a deposit of cash that was mailed. It doesn’t make sense to me for a wire or electronic transfer.
The person I responded to said discriminatory didn’t even make sense. I pointed out why it does make sense, because it is discriminatory and that’s perfectly fine.
Yes, that’s true and not in contrast with what I’ve said.
Then you shouldn’t let the transaction occur in the first place.
Sure, that sounds like it’s best addressed with enforcement of the requirements before keeping the money.
I’m not saying it’s a common issue. I’m saying that something like this should never occur.
I’m also not saying that I don’t value anti money laundering process. I agree those are very important.
However, I also think it’s even more important that people aren’t deprived of their money without due process. If you can’t accept it, because they’re not proving the required evidence then you should be required to return it unless there’s more to it. In order to keep the money, there needs to be some form of evidence showing money laundering not just an absence of evidence altogether.
I’m not seeing how that proves the transaction is clean.
If I put money in a bank account, then transfer it to another account, then back to the same one, the transfer back doesn’t obfuscate anything. If it’s not caught on the initial deposit in the banking system, then I’m not seeing how any subsequent transactions matter.
I understand that’s the law as it currently is. I’m saying that it shouldn’t result in any legal ramifications.
It seems they weren’t well setup, if they were then he wouldn’t have gotten to the point that he wired money before filling the required paperwork out.
You’re right that it’s incorrect about the racism. I was referring to the discrimination aspect.
If you’re aware, then why do you imply that it wasn’t discrimination? Or did I misunderstand that?
It absolutely does make sense because it is discriminatory. He’s absolutely correct.
The mistake that you are making, is thinking that all forms of discrimination are bad. They’re not. Most are in fact good. We just don’t tend to call them discrimination.
That honestly should be the law. If you can’t accept it without documentation, you should be required to return it. Of course you can also report it, but that’s separate.
I agree. It’s absolutely absurd that would say something along the lines of “Fuck, I got r*ped, what do I do?”
I’m of the opinion that you shouldn’t censor any words. If you feel the need to censor it, then just don’t say it. If you want to discuss it, then be able to say it. You should be able to say something like “X called Y a nigger”.
It is a paradox because there’s no objective, universal definition of tolerance. It’s literally impossible to be tolerant of everything. So you’re left with different forms of what intolerance people deem acceptable.
People make the same mistake about bigotry. It’s impossible not to be a bigot. You just don’t want to be the wrong kind of bigot. Now if only we could all agree on exactly what that was.