The Isolated Blurt Thread XLIII : Pointless Pining for Vagina of Brie

Status
Not open for further replies.
I do sorely wonder how such intelligent people can continuously make light of a subject, a person, or even a general theme and be so indignant when something they find worthwhile is made light of.
 
26993504_10156195867156800_6529710951167751628_n.jpg
 
it was 66 here today! a veritable heatwave after ice about 6 inches thick or more just a few days ago. crazy stuff :confused:

Ha! I wonder how close you are for me then. Monday was cold the schools were on a delay with Tuesday not much warmer. Now today in the 50s. Im hoping it’s still like that when I get home so I can open the windows and get some fresh air in here.
 
I finally put the book down at chapter 11 and then I forgot to take it with me when I left for work this morning. Grisham is not a great writer, but he is a superb storyteller.
 
We shall see. In the mean time, I am waiting to see if my event g meetings get canceled, but happy to have a snow day with the munchkins.
 


Google


IS evil.





LEONIA, N.J. (AP) — A New Jersey town less than two miles from the George Washington Bridge is putting up a “keep out” sign for motorists seeking a shortcut to the world’s busiest span.

As a response to navigation apps that re-route some of the tens of thousands of vehicles headed to the bridge, Leonia is to start imposing fines Monday on non-residents who drive on residential streets during the morning and evening commutes.

Local officials and police say the decision isn’t a hasty one and that they’ve done extensive traffic studies. They say it’s a safety issue, as well as a congestion issue for residents trying to get out of their driveways in the morning.

Police Chief Thomas Rowe says the goal is not to write tickets, but to change driving behavior.



 
Last edited:
Oh, today could be the day I quit my job. So much anger from the person who was told to help me. I would just rather do it myself than deal with that vitriol.

Guess when it rains it pours. But it can’t rain all the time.
 


Why Invocation of The "Precautionary Principle" in Climate Is Misleading and Irrational


...On examination, this new form of the principle doesn’t fit well with our common-sense ideas of how to deal with risk. For in thinking about risk, we recognize two kinds: risk to ourselves, and risk to others. As far as risk to ourselves goes, each of us must make our own decisions. We do it all the time; just about everything in life involves some degree of risk. We judge, rationally or otherwise, whether a particular risk is justified for us. And we decide either to take the risk, or not. For example, every time we go in a plane, there’s a risk it may crash and kill us. We weigh this up, consciously or not, against the gain we expect from making the journey. We look, and then we leap; or not. And most of us come out with the same decision: We get in that plane.

Today’s version of the precautionary principle is worse than useless in assessing risk to ourselves. For it would have us either avoid risks altogether, or focus on minimizing them. But a life without taking risks is, at best, the life of a vegetable. And a life spent focusing on risks is a paranoid one.

Risk to others is a more difficult subject. Sometimes our actions may have negative impacts on others; on their property, on their health, even in extreme cases on their very lives. Now, all individuals are responsible for the consequences of their actions to others, unless those actions were coerced. And it may be that in a particular case the harm, which an action causes others, exceeds what reasonable people will bear in a spirit of mutual tolerance. In such cases, in a sane world, we should be required to compensate those we have harmed. In environmental terms, that’s the basis of the idea of “polluter pays” – one with which I heartily agree.

There are, therefore, good reasons to invest in minimizing risk to others. I gave already the example of a company putting a new product on the market. In making decisions on such risks, particularly if the damage caused may be great, it makes sense to assess the risks, and their consequences and costs if things go wrong, as objectively as possible.

Rationally, we will invest in minimizing such a risk as long as the likely gain from the reduction of risk exceeds the cost involved in reducing it. Beyond that point, we have only two options; we either go ahead and face the consequences, or we scrap the whole thing. If we tried to use the precautionary principle as often interpreted today, however, we would have to spend forever more and more to allay less and less likely, or less and less serious, risks...



more...

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top