I have never seen "antibiotic soap". There are many anti-bacterial soaps, however, none of them contain antibiotics (at least not in the US and I was unable to find anything that indicates that it is any different in the EU). I am not a fan of anti-bacterial soaps because they kill not only pathogens but also beneficial bacteria. With the rare exceptions of certain places where the incidence of pathogens is likely to be significantly higher than normal (and just because your co-worker is sick does not make your work one of those places) , antibacterial soap is no more effective at preventing the transmission of disease than ordinary soap.
Well, there was a balance of power at the start of WWI and WWI still happened, as did the Franco-Prussian War and the Crimean War before that. Before the Franco-Prussian War both France and Prussia were viewed as strong countries. All of the participants in the Crimean War were viewed as strong countries.
You apparently never heard of the Franco-Prussian War or the Crimean War both of which involved what were considered powerful countries on both sides.
If you count the two wars the U.S. has been in against Pax Americana, then there are a lot of wars to be counted in the 1815-1915 period.
Right, because Germany did not attack France early in WWII and Japan did not attack the U.S. early in the same war. Sorry, the evidence suggests that balance of power world politics always leads to war sooner or later.
How far back do you want to go? Perhaps you are unaware that the Muslims started the wars that we call the Crusades (or at least those that were against Muslims) by invading "Christian" countries?
If you are only going to vote in the general election, I would say that you should vote for, or against, the incumbent. Most of the time you should vote against the incumbent (this is significantly less true in elections for offices that are term limited). It is much easier to unseat a bad one-term legislator than a bad two or more term legislator. The longer someone is in a particular office, the less likely they are to actually act in the best interests of their constituents. There was actually a study that found that the more powerful the Congressman and Senators from a particular state were, the more poorly that state's economy did relative to the rest of the country.
You have to get active in the local part of one of the two major parties and get enough other people who agree with you active so that you can control who represents the local party in local elections and who represents the local party and higher levels. It takes work and it takes time, but you can change things if you are willing to put in the effort (and are willing to listen to other people's ideas).
The AFL-CIO has never represented the workers. It has always represented the union bosses. When one of the AFL-CIO unions negotiate with a company there are two ways it can go. Management slips a "little something" to the union bosses and the workers get screwed. Or Management stands its ground and both the company and the workers get screwed.
The way I understood it (which does not make it any better) was that when the standard was being developed they said, "We've got this nifty-neat idea that we think would solve this problem in the new standard." Everybody else said, "Yeah, that will work." Then after the standard was established and everybody was working on moving over to it, Rambus said, "Oh, by the way, we have a patent on that essential piece of this new standard and everyone will have to pay us license fees to use it."
I may be mistaken and your take may be more accurate, but either way, it is good to see such scum lose in court.
I'm sorry, I was talking about the Tea Party movement. I am pretty sure that a much larger percentage of the people at the OWS protests teabag each other than at the Tea Party protests.
As to your examples there is nothing violent about carrying a gun, at least not when compared to throwing a molotov cocktail.
Which of course is why many conservatives call the Republican Party the "Stupid Party", because they keep trying to compromise with the Democrats who then make that "compromise" the new baseline for negotiation.
The "coverage" of the Tea Party for the first 6-9 months was mostly an attempt to ignore them. Then they tried to portray them as violent.
On the other hand, the press has tried to claim that the OWS protests were entirely peaceful when it was clear that the OWS protesters were trying to provoke a violent reaction from the police.
Perhaps if the OWS groups would so vehemently refuse to repudiate those who are violent, maybe people would not associate the whole group with the violence. Of course, it might also have something to do with the fact that significant numbers of the OWS protesters have acted in ways that were clearly intended to provoke a violent response from the police. Finally, the fact that the Tea Party protests were able to go on for as long as they did with the only violence being that of those who showed up to oppose them may have caused people to set their expectations high for such an event.
BINGO!!! We have a winner. The crackdown on the Occupy movement happened because the Democrats had discovered that not only did the movement help their chances in next year's elections, they were hurting those chances.
The poster I replied to said that "the Apple posse" is a "tiny, tiny majority of Apple buyers". How does putting it in context cause it to make any more sense?
The thing is significant elements of the tech industry, also, makes money from copyright and favors these expansions of copyright laws (Microsoft, as one example).
No, it is time for people to stop waiting for the parties to select their candidates for office before getting involved. If you want to change things get involved locally, where you can make the biggest difference. Support candidates at all levels who support making decisions at the lowest level of government possible.
The south is hardcore republican today and very conservative.
What does that have to do with the Civil Rights Act of 1964? The Republican Party can only dream of having the sort of lock on the south that the Democratic Party had in 1964. And the racist Democrats did not leave the Democratic Party (at least not for the most part). Robert Byrd has only been dead for a few years and he was the last KKK member in the Senate and a lifelong Democrat. William J. Fulbright was a strong segregationist and Bill Clinton's mentor. The man who as governor signed the law to fly the Confederate Flag over the South Carolina statehouse was serving in the U.S. Senate in 2000, as a Democrat, when the Democrats tried to make it an issue in the Republican Presidential Primary, nobody bothered to ask him if he thought it should be taken down. Al Gore's father was in the Senate in 1964 and voted against the Civil Rights Act.
A handful of Democrats left the Democratic Party over the Civil Rights Act, and while most of them were racist, most of the people who voted against the Civil Rights Act stayed in the Democratic Party and died as respected members of the party.
Judge the Democrats by the results of their policies.
Which PETA are we talking about? Why should People Eating Tasty Animals be upset about a virtual tanuka suit?
How many virtual tanukas are killed each year because of this game? Is the species in danget of being wiped out? Maybe we should put virtual tanukas on the endangered species list.
Do you have any idea how bad raccoon tastes? I am sure that is why PETA (People Eating Tasty Animals) is upset. They are afraid that people will play this game and start eating raccoons. When they discover how disgusting they taste, they will be turned off of eating meat from tasty animals.
They are attracted to the democratic party as southern states would not and even violently opposed having blacks register to vote.
The overwhelmingly Democratic southern states, or did your history teacher leave that part out? LBJ supported the Civil Rights Act because he saw it as the path to political power. The only reason that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was necessary was because LBJ (then the leader of the Senate) had watered down the Civil Rights Act of 1957 that had been proposed by the Eisenhower (Republican) Administration. Additionally, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 only passed because Republican members of Congress supported it to a greater percentage than the Democratic members of Congress. The Democratic party did not give blacks the right to vote, that would be the Republican Party that did that. The best that can be said for the Democratic Party in that regard is that in the 1960s the leaders of the Democratic Party saw the writing on the wall and stopped supporting efforts to suppress the black vote.
Last time I checked, the Republican party was actually trying to change the law to make it legal to refuse to hire someone because of the colour of their skin, whilst simultaneously blaming black people's inability to get jobs on the fact that the Government let them avoid starving to death without one just like you are. That's so racist it's boggles the mind.
Really, when did they propose that?
You know you really need to work on reading comprehension. What I said was that the Democratic Party says (just as you did) that if blacks are not given special treatment ("affirmative action"), they will not be able to succeed and they will starve to death. Without white guys like you to take care of them, they just won't survive.
Yes, we know. You represent the "peaceful" protesters of the Occupy movement. And when you get done with the powers that be, you will move on to those who have too much money (defined as "more than me"). Look how well that worked during the French Revolution.
You are basically correct, except for the part about the Democratic Party no longer being racist. The Democratic Party still says that blacks in America can only make it if tthe government takes care of them. Or the way that Democrats react when a conservative black appears as a powerful political figure (look at the racist images used to portray Clarence Thomas, Condoleeza Rice, even Herman Cain).
Slashdot Mirror
Absolutely, however they still kill beneficial bacteria as well as pathogenic ones and thus most of the time do more harm than good.
I have never seen "antibiotic soap". There are many anti-bacterial soaps, however, none of them contain antibiotics (at least not in the US and I was unable to find anything that indicates that it is any different in the EU). I am not a fan of anti-bacterial soaps because they kill not only pathogens but also beneficial bacteria. With the rare exceptions of certain places where the incidence of pathogens is likely to be significantly higher than normal (and just because your co-worker is sick does not make your work one of those places) , antibacterial soap is no more effective at preventing the transmission of disease than ordinary soap.
Well, there was a balance of power at the start of WWI and WWI still happened, as did the Franco-Prussian War and the Crimean War before that. Before the Franco-Prussian War both France and Prussia were viewed as strong countries. All of the participants in the Crimean War were viewed as strong countries.
You apparently never heard of the Franco-Prussian War or the Crimean War both of which involved what were considered powerful countries on both sides.
If you count the two wars the U.S. has been in against Pax Americana, then there are a lot of wars to be counted in the 1815-1915 period.
Right, because Germany did not attack France early in WWII and Japan did not attack the U.S. early in the same war. Sorry, the evidence suggests that balance of power world politics always leads to war sooner or later.
How far back do you want to go? Perhaps you are unaware that the Muslims started the wars that we call the Crusades (or at least those that were against Muslims) by invading "Christian" countries?
If you are only going to vote in the general election, I would say that you should vote for, or against, the incumbent. Most of the time you should vote against the incumbent (this is significantly less true in elections for offices that are term limited). It is much easier to unseat a bad one-term legislator than a bad two or more term legislator. The longer someone is in a particular office, the less likely they are to actually act in the best interests of their constituents. There was actually a study that found that the more powerful the Congressman and Senators from a particular state were, the more poorly that state's economy did relative to the rest of the country.
You have to get active in the local part of one of the two major parties and get enough other people who agree with you active so that you can control who represents the local party in local elections and who represents the local party and higher levels. It takes work and it takes time, but you can change things if you are willing to put in the effort (and are willing to listen to other people's ideas).
The AFL-CIO has never represented the workers. It has always represented the union bosses. When one of the AFL-CIO unions negotiate with a company there are two ways it can go. Management slips a "little something" to the union bosses and the workers get screwed. Or Management stands its ground and both the company and the workers get screwed.
The way I understood it (which does not make it any better) was that when the standard was being developed they said, "We've got this nifty-neat idea that we think would solve this problem in the new standard." Everybody else said, "Yeah, that will work." Then after the standard was established and everybody was working on moving over to it, Rambus said, "Oh, by the way, we have a patent on that essential piece of this new standard and everyone will have to pay us license fees to use it."
I may be mistaken and your take may be more accurate, but either way, it is good to see such scum lose in court.
I'm sorry, I was talking about the Tea Party movement. I am pretty sure that a much larger percentage of the people at the OWS protests teabag each other than at the Tea Party protests.
As to your examples there is nothing violent about carrying a gun, at least not when compared to throwing a molotov cocktail.
Which of course is why many conservatives call the Republican Party the "Stupid Party", because they keep trying to compromise with the Democrats who then make that "compromise" the new baseline for negotiation.
The "coverage" of the Tea Party for the first 6-9 months was mostly an attempt to ignore them. Then they tried to portray them as violent.
On the other hand, the press has tried to claim that the OWS protests were entirely peaceful when it was clear that the OWS protesters were trying to provoke a violent reaction from the police.
Perhaps if the OWS groups would so vehemently refuse to repudiate those who are violent, maybe people would not associate the whole group with the violence. Of course, it might also have something to do with the fact that significant numbers of the OWS protesters have acted in ways that were clearly intended to provoke a violent response from the police. Finally, the fact that the Tea Party protests were able to go on for as long as they did with the only violence being that of those who showed up to oppose them may have caused people to set their expectations high for such an event.
BINGO!!! We have a winner. The crackdown on the Occupy movement happened because the Democrats had discovered that not only did the movement help their chances in next year's elections, they were hurting those chances.
The poster I replied to said that "the Apple posse" is a "tiny, tiny majority of Apple buyers". How does putting it in context cause it to make any more sense?
but they're a tiny, tiny majority of Apple buyers in real life.
I thought Apple had a huge number of people who buy their products. If that is the case, how can the majority of them be "tiny, tiny"?
The thing is significant elements of the tech industry, also, makes money from copyright and favors these expansions of copyright laws (Microsoft, as one example).
No, it is time for people to stop waiting for the parties to select their candidates for office before getting involved. If you want to change things get involved locally, where you can make the biggest difference. Support candidates at all levels who support making decisions at the lowest level of government possible.
The south is hardcore republican today and very conservative.
What does that have to do with the Civil Rights Act of 1964? The Republican Party can only dream of having the sort of lock on the south that the Democratic Party had in 1964. And the racist Democrats did not leave the Democratic Party (at least not for the most part). Robert Byrd has only been dead for a few years and he was the last KKK member in the Senate and a lifelong Democrat. William J. Fulbright was a strong segregationist and Bill Clinton's mentor. The man who as governor signed the law to fly the Confederate Flag over the South Carolina statehouse was serving in the U.S. Senate in 2000, as a Democrat, when the Democrats tried to make it an issue in the Republican Presidential Primary, nobody bothered to ask him if he thought it should be taken down. Al Gore's father was in the Senate in 1964 and voted against the Civil Rights Act.
A handful of Democrats left the Democratic Party over the Civil Rights Act, and while most of them were racist, most of the people who voted against the Civil Rights Act stayed in the Democratic Party and died as respected members of the party.
Judge the Democrats by the results of their policies.
Which PETA are we talking about? Why should People Eating Tasty Animals be upset about a virtual tanuka suit?
How many virtual tanukas are killed each year because of this game? Is the species in danget of being wiped out? Maybe we should put virtual tanukas on the endangered species list.
Do you have any idea how bad raccoon tastes? I am sure that is why PETA (People Eating Tasty Animals) is upset. They are afraid that people will play this game and start eating raccoons. When they discover how disgusting they taste, they will be turned off of eating meat from tasty animals.
They are attracted to the democratic party as southern states would not and even violently opposed having blacks register to vote.
The overwhelmingly Democratic southern states, or did your history teacher leave that part out? LBJ supported the Civil Rights Act because he saw it as the path to political power. The only reason that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was necessary was because LBJ (then the leader of the Senate) had watered down the Civil Rights Act of 1957 that had been proposed by the Eisenhower (Republican) Administration. Additionally, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 only passed because Republican members of Congress supported it to a greater percentage than the Democratic members of Congress. The Democratic party did not give blacks the right to vote, that would be the Republican Party that did that. The best that can be said for the Democratic Party in that regard is that in the 1960s the leaders of the Democratic Party saw the writing on the wall and stopped supporting efforts to suppress the black vote.
Last time I checked, the Republican party was actually trying to change the law to make it legal to refuse to hire someone because of the colour of their skin, whilst simultaneously blaming black people's inability to get jobs on the fact that the Government let them avoid starving to death without one just like you are. That's so racist it's boggles the mind.
Really, when did they propose that?
You know you really need to work on reading comprehension. What I said was that the Democratic Party says (just as you did) that if blacks are not given special treatment ("affirmative action"), they will not be able to succeed and they will starve to death. Without white guys like you to take care of them, they just won't survive.
Yes, we know. You represent the "peaceful" protesters of the Occupy movement. And when you get done with the powers that be, you will move on to those who have too much money (defined as "more than me"). Look how well that worked during the French Revolution.
You are basically correct, except for the part about the Democratic Party no longer being racist. The Democratic Party still says that blacks in America can only make it if tthe government takes care of them. Or the way that Democrats react when a conservative black appears as a powerful political figure (look at the racist images used to portray Clarence Thomas, Condoleeza Rice, even Herman Cain).