Before the war, Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist. He wanted to stop new states from having slavery, and keep no slavery where it was. He was fine with letting the south keep their slaves for the sake of the Union.
The problem was the South did not want to limit their potential to grow slavery to new states, and decided to go to war over it.
Still doubt negotiation could have worked. Lincoln really did not want to go to war in the first place.
I think what most people are trying to get at here was that Lincoln himself was not particularly a pro abolishinist. He was a lawyer who just wanted the Union to stay together and follow the current laws.
He was up against difficulty when he wanted new states to not allow slavery. This made the southern states mad, etc, etc, war. Even still at first, he did not free slaves. It wasn't until the war was underway and not going as well as hoped that freeing slaves became a thing. This was after a southern slave commandeered a southern ship and escaped to the north with it. A general then had to decide if they were required to "return property" or free the slave. He freed the slave, stating he had no obligation to "return property" to a force that was an enemy. This was a big decision at the time. I think that event set the ball rolling on freeing slaves.
So people are being pedantic. Yes it was about slavery. No, it was not (at first) about freeing slaves. That came later.
I literally tried One Piece Kai so that I could get to the good part faster and I still didn't make it. One Piece fans tell me I was almost to the good part. Okay if your good part is 100+ normal episodes in, I'm gonna have to pass on your show.
How do you feel about precision fermentation to make milk products. Presumably this will eventually make cheese we can purchase made entirely without animals. Will you partake in this cheese or just keep the no cheese lifestyle?
How would he win the electoral college without being on the ballot? I guess more than half could write his name in.
If, say, half the states don't have him on the ballot though, that's a pretty unlikely thing to happen to win the necessary votes for the whole country.
For some reason I was remembering my brother spending like $700 for his original iPhone, whereas I waited for the iPhone 3g and spent like half. Mine was plasticky vs his solid feeling phone, but mine technically did more with the 3g network and even a compass! I was hoping this scenario would happen but maybe it's wishful thinking and incorrect memory.
The first iPhone was unreasonably expensive for really not much usability. Edge network only. No webapps designed yet. No app store. Not even a compass.
The first one of these will be like that, then if it catches on at all there will be a "worse" model that doesn't have as nice of a casing but is more usable and maybe comes with some sort of phone plan or something. I'm hoping this actually does catch on because VR is already so cool, but is waiting for that "connection" with others to happen.
For an example, the best connection experience I have had in VR was the zero gravity sports game Echo Arena, specifically in the lobby. They did such a good job with the 3d sound it actually felt like there was someone above me talking. But since there is no eye tracking, eye contact cannot be a thing. If they nail that though, work meetings in a virtual environment COULD be a thing. Spending time with family from hundreds of miles away COULD possibly work okay. Not as good as in person but a reasonable substitute.
But they have to nail it. Right now that one or two experiences is the best I have had. The rest just felt like halo on the Xbox 360 over Live. Cool, but not like they were sitting in the room with me.
Coolest course I've ever been to is just through a forest in the mountains of southern Oregon. No chain link baskets, just coffee cans on a stick to shoot at. But man what an amazing place to spend the afternoon. A small river (not deep enough to lose your disc), up and then down a smallish hillside, huge trees trees fairly widely spaced. Maybe that kind of course is common in certain areas but all the ones by me are at manicured parks. Fun but not the same.
So right now the PE ratio of the s & p 500 is 26 or so. That number on average historically around 15.5 if I remember correctly. Meaning it would take 15.5 year's profits at current profit levels to pay for a stock you buy. Ie, if a share was worth ten dollars, it would take 15.5 years for the companies to all make enough profit to cover the price of ten dollars for all the shares.
So that's average. We are now at 26 or more. So it now takes 26 years. Meaning, the stock market is TOO EXPENSIVE. This is a great thing for the boomers living off selling their shares. Just like with their overpriced homes, they are enjoying this situation.
Those of us working and BUYING shares are not. We can buy less percentage of a company for more money, and expect poorer returns on what we invest today. Same as with houses. We can buy less home for more money. Long term, means we will either have to work longer, or somehow live on less when we are unable to work anymore as we age.
So if you tell me we can perhaps get universal healthcare AND enjoy the benefit of stocks returning to reasonable levels enjoyed by previous generations, I'm now even more excited thinking about universal healthcare.
It's just the same meme you have always seen, saying the same thing it always says. If you haven't seen the meme before, you won't know what it says. Everyone is just having fun "translating" what they have already memorized (meme-orized?).
This isn't really a great argument. Subsidies are there to promote the things we want to come to fruition. Want your people to have solar? Subsidies for putting one on your roof. You want more electric cars on the road even though more expensive? Subsidies.
You want a billionaire to help a new technology reach people he wouldn't bother with? Subsidies.
I can't read the article due to paywall but from the headline, yes it violates HIPAA. Not sure if there is some trickery going on such as pretending to ask as another healthcare provider rather than as a cop. Pharmacies would then give the info thinking the other provider needed it for the care of the patient.
Before the war, Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist. He wanted to stop new states from having slavery, and keep no slavery where it was. He was fine with letting the south keep their slaves for the sake of the Union.
The problem was the South did not want to limit their potential to grow slavery to new states, and decided to go to war over it.
Still doubt negotiation could have worked. Lincoln really did not want to go to war in the first place.