Sentences with phrase «without other points»

However, a judge has the right to immediately suspend your license on the first incident without other points incurred for more serious violations.

Not exact matches

So this is a fairly significant technical challenge to make deeply cryogenic tanks out of carbon fiber, and it's only recently that we think the carbon fiber technology has gotten to the point where we can actually do this without having to create a liner — some sort of metal liner, or other liner, on the inside of the tanks, which would add mass and complexity.

As a number of observers have pointed out (including Fortune), the question isn't so much whether Facebook filters out certain kinds of news — something that newspapers and other media entities do every day without much scrutiny.

Cable news, no matter what channel you're watching, has devolved into putting multiple people onscreen while they see who can talk the loudest and longest without ever recognizing that the person on the other side of the split screen may have a point.

The idea might sound crazily impractical (and for founders with kids in school or other common life constraints, without a whole lot of planning and prep it probably is), but Rustrum points out the benefits aren't just a tan and a lengthy break from your snow shovel.

Indeed, he said other jurisdictions, notably Hong Kong and Utah, also offer more streamlined entry points for investors than Canada does — without relying at all on the typical cost advantages of a developing economy.

In addition to the lighting devices that immediately come to mind in the wake of a power outage and the tools highlighted in «Island Without Power,» Arteaga also pointed to glucose monitoring devices for diabetics, hearing aids and blood pressure monitors as a few other critical devices that needed power to function.

Much of this comes about from the significant reductions in tax rates (reduction of two - percentage points in the GST, a six - percentage point decline in the general corporate income tax rate, among others), without offsetting reductions to program expenses.

All other rewards are only worth 1 % and you can not transfer the points to other travel rewards programs (without also owning the Sapphire Preferred or Sapphire Reserve).

Who are you to judge others as «good» or «evil» without some kind of standard to point at?

Just because you or others are ignorant, doesn't mean you can point and accuse others of being a danger to safety without any reasonable grounds.

My point is I don't understand how all those people are saying they don't want to pay for others... how do I say this without CNN blocking my post?

Russ — I think there are contradictions, someone else doesn't, we recognize each other's points of view without requiring the other to accept them — voila!

You can put forth a point of view without deriding others.

How do you raise your children to be people of faith without either indoctrinating them to the point that they can not think for themselves on the one hand or leaving them without a solid foundation on the other?

The first description points to a level of mental functioning in which bodily experience is merely registered without much enhancement of the mental pole in the occasions other than perhaps a general feeling tone; the second points to an habitual form of bodily unity; and only the third suggests a flight from environmental obligations in the interest of greater depth of experience.

The Magisterium is clearly using Tertullian's lucid and succinct style from his Catholic writings to express the ancient orthodoxy of the Apostolic faith on these points without in any way endorsing his other, heretical, views.

Is the judge not capable of her own critical thinking skills without a lawyer on the other side pointing out the problem?

All I hear from you and other Atheists that there is no God and continue to echo that without addressing any points presented here.

I made an illusion to the fact that there are other things that obviously exist without evidence to others and asked for him to prove his point.

Again, the point is to not mix science and spiritual faith — both can exist without either validating each other.

If you can't understand my explanation above and see that as an attempt at discrediting, without pointing out where exactly it's wrong, then there isn't much more I can do, other than hope one day you'll learn something.

If a person wanted others to be unhappy at any point in time (without a reason of a greater good) that person was, and ever will be, evil.

It is, at least, apparent that the debates about humanitarian intervention by military force in the last decade, about the creation of international criminal tribunals in a number of cases, about the idea of a state's «universal jurisdiction» in cases of violations of the Genocide Convention or other «crimes against humanity,» about how far the global war on terror may proceed without violating the rights of states, and most recently, about the United - States - led use of force against the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, have all raised important points of positive and customary international law, and that in every one of these cases the outcome remains unsettled.

Elhanan Rosenbaum's «farewell» to his son at the end of the book makes the point: «A man like you, Malkiel, can love his people without hating others.

I'm pointing out they can both be believed without one contradicting the other.

Much more recently Eldridge Cleaver has pointed out that the splitting tendency in American culture, which we have traced back to the early Puritans, tended to make the white man a mind without a body and the black man a body without a mind.20 Only when the white man comes to respect his own body, to accept it as part of himself, will he be able to accept the black man's mind and treat him as something other than the living symbol of what he has rejected in himself.

A debate in which the thoughts are not expressed in the way in which they existed in the mind but in the speaking are so pointed that they may strike home in the sharpest way, and moreover without the men that are spoken to being regarded in any way present as persons; a conversation characterized by the need neither to communicate something, nor to learn something, nor to innuence someone, nor to come into connexion with someone, but solely by the desire to have one's own self - reliance confirmed by making the impression that is made, or if it has become unsteady to have it strengthened; a friendly chat in which each regards himself as absolute and legitimate and the other as relativized and questionable; a lovers» talk in which both partners alike enjoy their own glorious soul and their precious experience — what an underworld of faceless spectres of dialogue!

If the point is only that no part of the world can exist without relations to other parts of the world, this is, of course, true.

Can you receive goodness without wanting to point every other fellow beggar on the road to the source of that goodness?

The celebration, if there is any to be had, is simply being able to come to a point where we are capable of sharing that experience with the outside world without prejudice toward or fear of others.

As we pointed out in Chapter 8, we can consider each other to be wrong without necessarily impugning the validity of the other's religious beliefs, if their beliefs lead to right relation with God and people.

On the other hand, it appeared that within those few millennia any object could be arbitrarily displaced and removed to another point without undergoing any change in its environment or in itself.

Now create an adversary so things can stay in balance... One can not exist without the other... otherwise what's the point?

If we do not attribute any special status to the human race, then the goal should be for it to diminish in size to the point where the planet can support it alongside other species without discrimination.

Occasional sessions without both spouses can produce understanding of how their ways of relating may be blocking each others growth at points.)

While the vast majority of these doctrinal statements were created primarily for the purpose of defining one group's distinctive beliefs without condemning those who believe differently, nearly every statement contains points that are considered «non-negotiable» and which will cause churches to separate from others who believe differently, and even condemn these other groups as «unsaved.»

The essential point was that given the theory of impetus, the continued motion of a projectile could be explained after contact with the moving - agent was terminated without appealing to a rush of air around the projectile, a phenomenon not easily made compatible with other empirical and theoretical aspects of the Aristotelian theory.

Since the idiots like Monarda and its alter egos can't prove their points, the conclusion is that they're without proof; therefore the other side wins.

You are condeming an awful lot of pastors that have worked tirelessly and unselfishly all their lives to help others without a shred of evidence (sorry pointing a finger at to a handful of televangilist does not prove that tens of thousands of other pastors are the same.

Since, then, the message of the coming of the Kingdom and that of the will of God point men to the present moment as the final hour in the sense of the hour of decision, the two do form a unity, each is incomplete without the other.

Maybe the whole point of seasons, in life and in weather, is that sometimes they march on without our consent, without our permission, and that other times, they linger longer than we would like.

When I imagined what it would be like to give generously without wondering what is in it for me, to give up my grudges and learn to diffuse hatred with love, to stop judging other people once and for all, to care for the poor and seek out the downtrodden, to finally believe that stuff can't make me happy, to give up my urge to gossip and manipulate, to worry less about what other people think, to refuse to retaliate no matter the cost, to be capable of forgiving to the point of death, to live as Jesus lived and love as Jesus loved, one word came to my mind: liberation.

Both sides of the debate can't seem to make any points without insulting each other.

Even though I might disagree with some emphases, I believe we can learn from the ideas of others in the missional conversation without having to agree with them on every point.

Indeed, it happens so often that it raises serious questions about the other approaches, at least insofar as they try to proceed — ever so carefully and judiciously, they suppose — without this central point up front.

Even the point about what is best for other creatures, which may seem very modern, is not without foundation in Hebrew Scriptures in such passages as the law against taking the hen - bird as well as the eggs from the nest (Deut 22:6), or this saying from Proverbs: «A righteous man has regard for the life of his beast» (12:10), where, be it noted, the quality that makes a man considerate of his working animals is not prudence or good business sense but «righteousness,» a point all the more significant when we remember that in the Hebrew Scriptures one of the marks of righteousness is not mere evenhandedness but active favor to the weak and deprived.

I'm glad you can see the value in evolution and understand it's veracity, but you should understand that trying to link the two relies on you not being able to actually point out how to do this without pretending one doesn't exist to believe in the other.

Jellinek once pointed out that «a man who stays drunk for days without regard to family, work and other duties commits such a gross violation of all cultural standards that his action can not be a matter of choice unless his is a psychopathic constitution.»

It's a good jumping - off point, as other reviewers have said, but without the garlic and the ginger it's mostly just salty.