ouchey2
ouchey2
ouchey2

That’s false. Safety is the top concern for anyone developing technology in this space. None of it begins or even matures on public streets - what you see today has been in testing for years before being allowed to emerge for public testing.

Very poor analogy. It’s fine to question, and if necessary, impose limitations for safety, but there’s no need to demonize them by way of a clickbait rant.

If society wasn’t ready for this level of technology, we would have stopped Uber and others in their tracks years ago. We are ready, and regardless of the unfortunate incidents that mar any path to advancement, the final product will, in fact, offer a higher overall safety margin than a human can. There’s plenty of

Not to sound too callous, but this is a software-based system, and all of the vehicle and victim tracking data will be available to study what went wrong. Additionally, they will be able to recreate nearly exact scenarios in order to rigorously test future software updates.

As always, you’re content to present a one-sided perspective and not the whole picture. Yes, the rule would have introduced some useful consumer protections, but why not point out that it would have cost investors an estimated $13 billion in additional fees? Or the fact that financial advisors would be required to pay

I’m not an expert, I just joined in because I saw CPCs receiving the sort of ignorant blanket criticism that is typically doled out in these forums. My limited understanding is that CPCs vary quite a bit, and provide a pretty wide variety of services, a few of which are often medical (ultrasounds, pregnancy tests).

The CPC I’m aware of employs legit RNs to do ultrasounds, and they state on their web site that they don’t provide referrals for abortions. They have an area titled “Abortions” on their web site that provides information and presumably helps their search ranking...is that obfuscation? They would probably argue that

I’m sure there are a few that employ those kinds of practices, but that’s a pretty biased blanket summary that’s far from a fair assessment of all of them. Many don’t even have religious affiliations, and the services and counseling they offer vary pretty widely.

The place I’m familiar with near me provides free ultrasounds by RNs. They state on their web site that they don’t offer abortions or abortion referrals, and have helped a lot of people, whether or not they end up having an abortion (or after they have).  

No one is arguing that strongly-held opinions have been taken way too far on either side of the issue.

How do they “prey” upon women, and for what gain? Have you ever taken steps to look at the information or services that are being provided, or consider what harm they could bring? How are low-income or less educated women less capable of making a choice or walking out the door when presented with lies or a perspective

Many would probably argue that they aren’t being deceptive, but are rather just targeting their core demographic the way a toy company would advertise on Cartoon Network or an online retailer might try to buy the domain amazom.com. If they were being deceptive by presenting scandalously false information with their

Good point.

Even if you favor abortion as an option, why is there such open disdain for those who would offer alternatives to it by those claiming to embrace choice? Being honest, what seems to have earned them the label of “shady” purveyors of misinformation is just a general disagreement with their ideology and tactics.

This could be huge. The ongoing sanctions have clearly been crippling, and when combined with Trump’s brinkmanship, it seems - at least on the surface - to have actually worked.

Most of the arguments in this forum and elsewhere that “games aren’t the problem, period” are probably correct, except that it would be hard to account for a very small percentage of individuals with a degree of mental illness which may be far more susceptible to violence conditioning in games, and who may also have

This is good information, but divesting at this point will likely result in missing out on some serious gains...gun manufacturers always said that Obama was their best salesman.

Instant Pot!

Your intellectual dishonesty is always laid bare when you still can’t find room between your criticisms to acknowledge that a president who has the trust of conservatives on guns has said pretty much exactly what you would want him to say for a change.