OK, why should someone who is mentally disturbed be allowed in the armed forces? Please explain how someone who wants to mutilate their body because their perception of their sexuality is at odds with their physical reality is not mentally disturbed.
It is a long way from something being "not very far fetched" to that same something being "very clearly" so. Of course, you also point out a reason that the Swedish government might want to string up Julian Assange without any pressure from the U.S. government.
Did you read the post I replied to? That poster stated that "gay" and "transgendered" are unrelated categories. You say they are related, therefore you are not addressing the reason I posted.
Do you have any evidence to suggest that the U.S. government has any involvement in this Swedish case? Or are you just assuming, since you think the U.S. government must be out to get him, they must be behind this?
They should have the "What is Dropbox?" paragraph on the home page (it is a very good summary of what Dropbox is/does). When I go to a product's home page, I don't want a tour of the product. I want to know what the product is. So, I'm not going to follow a link for a tour until I know if it is something I'm interested in.
Personally, I have the opposite thought. I hope somebody from Dropbox does come one and read this. Maybe they will improve the way they talk about their product so that people will know what they are. The only reason I know what Dropbox is is because a friend of mine who has to have the latest and greatest, cool, new thing asked me to sign up for it so that he could get the extra space you get for getting a new member. I haven't used yet, but I have a project I'm going to start one of these days that it will simplify.
Well, before Congress passed DADT in the first place, the military actively investigated soldiers who were rumored to be gay. If they were determined to be gay, they were discharged. My recollection is that it was a dishonorable discharge, but I'm not sure that this is correct.
NO, if that money was not used by the government it would have been used by someone else. To use your analogy, you borrowed money from the bank to start a business that a year later employed 10 people. Because the bank loaned you that money they didn't have it to loan to the guy who came in the next day to get money to keep his business running until his customers could pay their bills, as a result he had to layoff/fire his 20 employees.
Yes, my analogy is that the government does not produce wealth, it can only take money from one part of the economy and spend it in a different part of the economy. Money that the government spends is money that cannot be spent on something else, even if they borrowed the money.
Seriously, it's like if I took out a loan, started a business, hired some people, and then someone at the bank looked at job figures for the entire town I live in, saw that the number of jobs had decreased, and then concluded that the loan they gave me was to blame. Absurd.
No, it's like you had an established business and took money from the most profitable part of your business and used it to hire people in the least profitable part of your business, gave a bonus to the managers of that division and were then surprised when the manager of the profitable part told you that they had to lay off more of their staff than the number that the unprofitable part hired.
No, I have no idea what the legal definition of that term is. However, I, also, know that if I was on a jury I am required to ask the judge what it means, not look it up for myself (unless the court has provided me with a dictionary that contains the definition).
BTW, our legal system is set up on the principle that if the prosecution fails to make clear to the jury what the definition of a term that is critical to finding the defendant guilty is, the jury is supposed to find him/her not guilty. It is the job of the defense team to make sure that the jury is aware of this.
But that is a retarded rule. I can perfectly believe the jury find it hard to believe something that stupid is the actual law.
There is a reason for that rule. The Courts need to ensure that jurors do not rely on prejudicial sources of information in making their decision as to guilt. Even how the term is defined can be prejudicial (especialy if that definition is at odds with that given in the law).
If your Grandmother at 79 can't figure out how to play a DVD, she isn't going to be able to figure out Chrome OS. My mom is 84 and she figured out how to send and receive email on a Windows PC. Yeah, I had to walk her through it step by step and she took notes, but she did it with no problems after that.
So, what do you want the U.S. government to have done once the newly elected President took office? Zelaya's term had expired at that point. BTW, that was when the U.S. government lifted sanctions against Honduras. The U.S. instituted sanctions against Honduras when Zelaya was removed from power. They did not lift those sanctions until after the new President took power. What other course of action should they have taken? Are you saying that they should have sanctions in place until Honduras returns Zelaya to office? Even though his term expired at the end of 2008?
BTW, I personally know several Hondurans (who have no connection to the government), they don't seem to think there was anything untoward done by their government in this situation.
I am not sure that your suggested solutions would work, but you start by asking the right question(s). What do people want/need?
Too often, people start out by saying, "How do we fix congestion/urban sprawl/some other perceived problem?" They don't spend any time analyzing why we have the problem. Even if they do, they try to figure out how to change people's behavior rather than try and develop a solution based on what people want. Expanding on what someone else posted, most people want to live in proximity to a limited number of other people. When the population density gets too high a certain number of people start moving to less densely populated areas. When the population density gets too low, the remaining people start to move to more densely populated areas.
What WPA-style programs or large infrastructure projects were in the stimulus legislation?
According to everything I can find only about $100 billion out of the about $800 billion went to large infrastructure projects. Yet, the various economists who calculate it created jobs use the 1.5 multiplier on the whole $800 billion.
They did that because that "assumption" is mainstream economic theory. That multiplier effect of stimulus spending backed by numerous studies over many decades, to the point that within economics it's considered settled.
You know it's amazing. Economists who say that politicians doing what politicians want (spend money) to do is good for the economy get hired to work for the government more than economists who say that it is bad for the economy. Oh yeah those economists who say what the politicians want to hear, also get more grant money from the government.
On the other hand, we saw what happens when you follow the economic policy behind the stimulus package. You see, they tried this sort of thing once before in the 1970s. In the 1970s, we had high unemployment and high inflation. Guess what, the economists who tell us how wonderful the stimulus package was are now saying that unemployment will remain high through 2014 or 2015 and we are starting to see inflation pick up.
According to various things I have read at the time Obama was born the state of Hawaii would issue a Certificate of Live Birth any time in the first few months of a baby's life. So, for example, if a child was born in California, but the parents wanted it to be recorded as born in Hawaii, they could get a Certificate of Live Birth in Hawaii.
Saying that Obama was born in the USA is a fact, not an opinion. If you think he wasn't, then you are wrong. Wrong is not as equally valid a point of view as right.
Upon what do you base your opinion that he was born in the USA?
I believe that he was, but I have not seen any solid evidence to that effect.
Do you know how the CBO calculated that the stimulus "saved and created millions of jobs?
They did it by assuming that each dollar of government spending results in 1.5 dollars of private spending.
BTW, please list a few of these "ubiased" economic experts. I have yet to actually hear of one by name.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, why should someone who is mentally disturbed be allowed in the armed forces? Please explain how someone who wants to mutilate their body because their perception of their sexuality is at odds with their physical reality is not mentally disturbed.
Yes, but the absence of evidence moves something from "very clearly" to "possible".
It is a long way from something being "not very far fetched" to that same something being "very clearly" so. Of course, you also point out a reason that the Swedish government might want to string up Julian Assange without any pressure from the U.S. government.
Did you read the post I replied to? That poster stated that "gay" and "transgendered" are unrelated categories. You say they are related, therefore you are not addressing the reason I posted.
Do you have any evidence to suggest that the U.S. government has any involvement in this Swedish case? Or are you just assuming, since you think the U.S. government must be out to get him, they must be behind this?
They should have the "What is Dropbox?" paragraph on the home page (it is a very good summary of what Dropbox is/does). When I go to a product's home page, I don't want a tour of the product. I want to know what the product is. So, I'm not going to follow a link for a tour until I know if it is something I'm interested in.
Personally, I have the opposite thought. I hope somebody from Dropbox does come one and read this. Maybe they will improve the way they talk about their product so that people will know what they are. The only reason I know what Dropbox is is because a friend of mine who has to have the latest and greatest, cool, new thing asked me to sign up for it so that he could get the extra space you get for getting a new member. I haven't used yet, but I have a project I'm going to start one of these days that it will simplify.
Did you read the post I was responding to?
Well, before Congress passed DADT in the first place, the military actively investigated soldiers who were rumored to be gay. If they were determined to be gay, they were discharged. My recollection is that it was a dishonorable discharge, but I'm not sure that this is correct.
Then how come just about every gay rights group is some variation of a "lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered" rights group?
NO, if that money was not used by the government it would have been used by someone else. To use your analogy, you borrowed money from the bank to start a business that a year later employed 10 people. Because the bank loaned you that money they didn't have it to loan to the guy who came in the next day to get money to keep his business running until his customers could pay their bills, as a result he had to layoff/fire his 20 employees.
They borrowed the money from somewhere, that money was not available to lend to some more productive use.
Yes, my analogy is that the government does not produce wealth, it can only take money from one part of the economy and spend it in a different part of the economy. Money that the government spends is money that cannot be spent on something else, even if they borrowed the money.
Seriously, it's like if I took out a loan, started a business, hired some people, and then someone at the bank looked at job figures for the entire town I live in, saw that the number of jobs had decreased, and then concluded that the loan they gave me was to blame. Absurd.
No, it's like you had an established business and took money from the most profitable part of your business and used it to hire people in the least profitable part of your business, gave a bonus to the managers of that division and were then surprised when the manager of the profitable part told you that they had to lay off more of their staff than the number that the unprofitable part hired.
No, I have no idea what the legal definition of that term is. However, I, also, know that if I was on a jury I am required to ask the judge what it means, not look it up for myself (unless the court has provided me with a dictionary that contains the definition).
BTW, our legal system is set up on the principle that if the prosecution fails to make clear to the jury what the definition of a term that is critical to finding the defendant guilty is, the jury is supposed to find him/her not guilty. It is the job of the defense team to make sure that the jury is aware of this.
But that is a retarded rule. I can perfectly believe the jury find it hard to believe something that stupid is the actual law.
There is a reason for that rule. The Courts need to ensure that jurors do not rely on prejudicial sources of information in making their decision as to guilt. Even how the term is defined can be prejudicial (especialy if that definition is at odds with that given in the law).
If your Grandmother at 79 can't figure out how to play a DVD, she isn't going to be able to figure out Chrome OS. My mom is 84 and she figured out how to send and receive email on a Windows PC. Yeah, I had to walk her through it step by step and she took notes, but she did it with no problems after that.
So, what do you want the U.S. government to have done once the newly elected President took office? Zelaya's term had expired at that point. BTW, that was when the U.S. government lifted sanctions against Honduras. The U.S. instituted sanctions against Honduras when Zelaya was removed from power. They did not lift those sanctions until after the new President took power. What other course of action should they have taken? Are you saying that they should have sanctions in place until Honduras returns Zelaya to office? Even though his term expired at the end of 2008?
BTW, I personally know several Hondurans (who have no connection to the government), they don't seem to think there was anything untoward done by their government in this situation.
I am not sure that your suggested solutions would work, but you start by asking the right question(s). What do people want/need?
Too often, people start out by saying, "How do we fix congestion/urban sprawl/some other perceived problem?" They don't spend any time analyzing why we have the problem. Even if they do, they try to figure out how to change people's behavior rather than try and develop a solution based on what people want. Expanding on what someone else posted, most people want to live in proximity to a limited number of other people. When the population density gets too high a certain number of people start moving to less densely populated areas. When the population density gets too low, the remaining people start to move to more densely populated areas.
No, but this sure looks like it might be.
http://www.eaavideo.org/video.aspx?v=635469588001
What WPA-style programs or large infrastructure projects were in the stimulus legislation?
According to everything I can find only about $100 billion out of the about $800 billion went to large infrastructure projects. Yet, the various economists who calculate it created jobs use the 1.5 multiplier on the whole $800 billion.
They did that because that "assumption" is mainstream economic theory. That multiplier effect of stimulus spending backed by numerous studies over many decades, to the point that within economics it's considered settled.
You know it's amazing. Economists who say that politicians doing what politicians want (spend money) to do is good for the economy get hired to work for the government more than economists who say that it is bad for the economy. Oh yeah those economists who say what the politicians want to hear, also get more grant money from the government.
On the other hand, we saw what happens when you follow the economic policy behind the stimulus package. You see, they tried this sort of thing once before in the 1970s. In the 1970s, we had high unemployment and high inflation. Guess what, the economists who tell us how wonderful the stimulus package was are now saying that unemployment will remain high through 2014 or 2015 and we are starting to see inflation pick up.
According to various things I have read at the time Obama was born the state of Hawaii would issue a Certificate of Live Birth any time in the first few months of a baby's life. So, for example, if a child was born in California, but the parents wanted it to be recorded as born in Hawaii, they could get a Certificate of Live Birth in Hawaii.
Saying that Obama was born in the USA is a fact, not an opinion. If you think he wasn't, then you are wrong. Wrong is not as equally valid a point of view as right.
Upon what do you base your opinion that he was born in the USA?
I believe that he was, but I have not seen any solid evidence to that effect.
Do you know how the CBO calculated that the stimulus "saved and created millions of jobs?
They did it by assuming that each dollar of government spending results in 1.5 dollars of private spending.
BTW, please list a few of these "ubiased" economic experts. I have yet to actually hear of one by name.