You do realize that we judge the specialized professionals who write software on the basis of the software they write, while we judge the specialized professionals who deal with the legal system according to a standard set up by others of that profession?
Which brings up my Second Rule of Voting:
When given a choice, vote for the candidate that isn't a lawyer.
If you want to know my Three Rulles of Voting, here they are:
1.)When in Doubt, vote the Ins, Out
2.)When given a choice, vote for the candidate that isn't a lawyer
3.)Vote to resolve a problem/issue at the most local level possible
At 5 to 20%, they'd have to turn down most cases unless they were a slam dunk, or the client paid up front.
Based on what I have seen, they should turn down most cases. Additionally, there are a lot of cases where the case only exists because the lawyer went looking for it. This is especially true of class action law suits. This is not to say that all class action law suits are bad, it is to say that the legal profession in this country has become bad.
Yes, but not enough of those people put back to work would have been reliable votes for the Democratic Party. It was much more productive to use that stimulus to give money to Democratic donors (unions and others) who could then plow that money back into the Democratic Party's capmaign coffers and lobby the government to get the government to bail out their pension plans (which are underfunded in part because the unions spent millions of dollars getting Democrats elected rather than in funding their pension plans).
You actually make one of the mistakes that always occurs in this discussion by using the term "sustainable energy". The discussion should be about wind power, solar power, nuclear power, natural gas, oil, coal, etc.. All of these sources of energy have different benefits and costs. Wind power and solar power are not equally good or bad ideas. Whether either one is a good or bad idea depends on where one is talking about putting them.
The perception of the two that I have seen is this:
wind/solar power: safe, expensive, but prices falling, the future of energy
nuclear power: "scary", proven technology, lots of dangerous byproducts
the reality:
wind/solar power: unreliable (it isn't always sunny/the wind doesn't always blow), requires large amounts of acreage to generate significant quantities
nuclear power: lots of ideas for improved plants that have not been fully developed (including ways to significantly reduce the amount of dangerous byproducts)
Deemed as passed is just confirmation of something that has already passed, so I don't see that as much of a trick since the thing passed the house in the first place.
What had passed in the House in the first place was a different bill. The Senate had passed a different bill then the House and the Dems couldn't get the bill that was passed in the House passed in the Senate, so they "deemed" the bill passed by the Senate as passed so that they could use a parliamentary trick to ammend it.
As for the months they spent talking to the Repubs, that was an attempt to get political cover for a bill that the majority of Americans still oppose and want repealed.
The difference is that the R's are ruthless and push stuff through using every trick they can find, the other party be damned. The D's are not ruthless and try to be above board and bipartisan.
The whole reason the tax cuts are on the table again is that R's used parliamentary procedures to push them through and those procedures prevented them from being permanent.
Just an observation.
You mean the way that the Dems pushed through healthcare using parliamentary tricks to overcome all opposition? You know, the way the House "deemed" the bill to have passed?
If you think the Dems try to be "bipartisan, you really need to pay closer attention to what they actually do rather than listening to what they say.
OK, when the Repubs had a smaller majority than the Dems have now they did all sorts of bad stuff that everybody knew was bad, but now that the Dems have a larger majority than the Repubs ever had, they can't do anything to fix what the Repubs did? Is that what you believe? You do realize that the Dems had a filibuster proof majority from January 2009 through January 2010 and even now, it requires every Republican to agree to maintain a filibuster (the Dems are only one vote short of having a filibuster proof majority). The Republicans never had a filibuster proof majority.
If you believe that the Dems do not have control of the government now with one of the largest majorities in the history of the country for any party and control of the White House, then the Republicans never had control of the government because they never had anywhere near this large of a majority.
Angle is a verbally-spastic nutball, with little logic, even less grasp of facts, and nothing to recommend her other than a knowing look while she spews phrases that lack any connection to reality.
You left out that she is not Harry Reid. I believe that most of those who plan on voting for her consider that to be her greatest asset.
I said I didn't disagree with the idea that the opposing candidate was that bad. I just wanted to make sure that people knew who that candidate was, the man who the Democrats in the Senate believe is the best man to lead them (If he's bad, what does that say about the rest of them?).
I used to work retail. Based on the fact that the price tags were not standard corporate tags, there is a possibility that what you observed is something done by local/regional management and is actually in violation of official Best Buy policy. I would recomend sending a letter/e-mail to Best Buy corporate offices complaining whenever you observe such behavior.
As an example of a way in which a Regional Manager may encourage such behavior in violation of corporate policy is an experience I had when I worked for one college bookstore. I was the manager of the bookstore of a satellite campus. My Regional Manager told me on more than one visit, "Bob (fictitious name for main campus bookstore manager) may have told you to do (some particular practice that would disguise losses), but you shouldn't do that, it is a violation of company policy." Now "Bob" had never told me to do that particular thing. In fact he had emphasized that I should do no such thing. I came to realize that my Regional Manager was in fact telling me to do what her words said not to do. She wanted to make sure that I knew how to make my numbers look better (and therefore make her numbers look better) while being able to deny suggesting that I follow that practice in violation of corporate policy. I never followed her idea because I was able to radically improve my loss numbers over my predeccesor simply by being competent.
There is nothing wrong with Best Buy charging what they charge to do this. However, from the comments here (and my experience with Best Buy) they make it seem like it is something much more complicated to do than it actually is. This is something that we should broadcast to make people aware that Best Buy (and many other retailers) make things like this appear much more complicated than they are. There are a lot of people who could and would do this for themselves if they understood how basic it is. What is unethical is Best Buy encouraging people to think this is something that only a "trained professional" can safely do.
I agree that the government should not get involved in this. If people are foolish enough to pay Best Buy for something that they could do for free, so be it.
However, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't make a stink about the fact that Best Buy does this. The reason to make a stink is not to get the government to do something about it. The reason to make a stink is to inform people about it and get them to think about whether they want to do business with a company that does this. Especially when given a litle thought, it makes one wonder where else Best Buy is nickle and diming their customers. People shop at Best Buy because they percieve it to be a less expensive place to buy stuff than other places you can go into and pick something up. Making stories like this one well known will diminish that perception.
Because if you do research on the early promoters of "education" curriculum, you discover that they frequently talked about using public schools to train children to accept beliefs that were contrary to those of thier parents.
The reason we have teacher's degrees and curriculum is because otherwise we'd have no quality control and no assurances that kids would get out of school knowing even the minimum about the world they ought to.
And how has that worked out? Oh yeah, we have kids getting out of school not knowing the minimum about the world that they need to, let alone what they ought to know. Please provide any study which shows any significant percentage of home schooled kids getting to college age without knowing how to read and write and do basic math. I would much rather have every 18 year old believing the Easter Bunny delivers eggs every spring and Santa Claus delivers gifts to good boys and girls every winter but know how to do basic math and read & write, then what we get out of our public schools. So while some public schools are better than some home schooling, overall, home schooling is superior to public school.
I wish I had mod points, if for no other reason than to offset the flamebait mod. I will have to remember your wording because it is perfect. It is understandable that some people will push back against an organization that bullies the way that the US Copyright Group does, but bomb threats are way over the line.
There is definitely an argument to be made that DDoS attacks are proportional/equivalent to some of the US Copyright Group's behaviors.
You claim that neither the war in Afghanistan nor in Iraq acheived their stated aims. I would argue that both acheived their stated aims (although there is a good chance that that will yet be reversed in Afghanistan). In Iraq, the stated aim was the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. Now, I may be mistaken but I am pretty sure that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power there. In Afghanistan, the stated aim was the removal of the Taliban from power and destroying the Al Qaeda training camps that were operating openly there, The Taliban are not in power in Afghanistan and the Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan have been destroyed. Now there is reason to believe that when we remove our troops from Afghanistan the Taliban will be able to regain power, so that war may yet prove to be a failure.
I'm confused as to how net neutrality would protect against consumers being held hostage to a carrier paying for content. Are you saying that net neutrality would make it illegal for ESPN to charge ISPs for allowing the ISPs subscribers to access one of their websites? If your ISP does not pay ESPN a PER SUBSCRIBER fee, ESPN does not allow any of that ISPs subscribers to access ESPN3. That means that I am paying for other people to access ESPN3.
The summary gets one thing wrong. Antibiotic resistant bacteria are not stronger than those that are nor antibiotic resistant. As a matter of fact they are weaker. Generally, the way that bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics is by shutting down the cellular mechanism that the antibiotic uses to get into the cell. However, that cellular mechanism serves a useful function in the cell (usually to bring nutrients into the bacterial cell). When antibiotic resistant bacteria are in an environment without antibiotics they generally die off over a relatively short time-span. This is why currently most infections with antibiotic resistant bacteria occur in hospitals.
That being said, excessive use of antibiotics is still a bad thing.
Because none of the laws that the FCC is set up to enforce apply to this. The FCC cannot just make up a new regulation on anything relating to TV or radio (or other communication methods). There must first be a law which gives them the authority to do so.
Personally, I think that many of the laws authorizing regulatory agencies like the FCC are too broad to begin with.
Yes, I can almost see how MS could use the SL environment to expand some of their exisitng offerings in a way that would move those offerings from "boring, who cares" to "hey, that's sort of cool". If they were to write a client for SL for the Xbox it could have real potential. I'm not sure if MS would make it work, but I can sort of see how they might see a business opportunity. I don't play SL, but I have several friends who do. I have always thought SL was one of those things that has great potential if somebody can figure out what that potential is.
That's because Communists were Internationalists, while Hitler was a Nationalist. That is really the only difference between Hitler's political and economic philosophy and that of the Communists.
Slashdot Mirror
You do realize that we judge the specialized professionals who write software on the basis of the software they write, while we judge the specialized professionals who deal with the legal system according to a standard set up by others of that profession?
When given a choice, vote for the candidate that isn't a lawyer.
If you want to know my Three Rulles of Voting, here they are:
At 5 to 20%, they'd have to turn down most cases unless they were a slam dunk, or the client paid up front.
Based on what I have seen, they should turn down most cases. Additionally, there are a lot of cases where the case only exists because the lawyer went looking for it. This is especially true of class action law suits. This is not to say that all class action law suits are bad, it is to say that the legal profession in this country has become bad.
Yes, but not enough of those people put back to work would have been reliable votes for the Democratic Party. It was much more productive to use that stimulus to give money to Democratic donors (unions and others) who could then plow that money back into the Democratic Party's capmaign coffers and lobby the government to get the government to bail out their pension plans (which are underfunded in part because the unions spent millions of dollars getting Democrats elected rather than in funding their pension plans).
You actually make one of the mistakes that always occurs in this discussion by using the term "sustainable energy". The discussion should be about wind power, solar power, nuclear power, natural gas, oil, coal, etc.. All of these sources of energy have different benefits and costs. Wind power and solar power are not equally good or bad ideas. Whether either one is a good or bad idea depends on where one is talking about putting them.
The perception of the two that I have seen is this:
wind/solar power: safe, expensive, but prices falling, the future of energy
nuclear power: "scary", proven technology, lots of dangerous byproducts
the reality:
wind/solar power: unreliable (it isn't always sunny/the wind doesn't always blow), requires large amounts of acreage to generate significant quantities
nuclear power: lots of ideas for improved plants that have not been fully developed (including ways to significantly reduce the amount of dangerous byproducts)
Deemed as passed is just confirmation of something that has already passed, so I don't see that as much of a trick since the thing passed the house in the first place.
What had passed in the House in the first place was a different bill. The Senate had passed a different bill then the House and the Dems couldn't get the bill that was passed in the House passed in the Senate, so they "deemed" the bill passed by the Senate as passed so that they could use a parliamentary trick to ammend it.
As for the months they spent talking to the Repubs, that was an attempt to get political cover for a bill that the majority of Americans still oppose and want repealed.
The difference is that the R's are ruthless and push stuff through using every trick they can find, the other party be damned. The D's are not ruthless and try to be above board and bipartisan.
The whole reason the tax cuts are on the table again is that R's used parliamentary procedures to push them through and those procedures prevented them from being permanent.
Just an observation.
You mean the way that the Dems pushed through healthcare using parliamentary tricks to overcome all opposition? You know, the way the House "deemed" the bill to have passed?
If you think the Dems try to be "bipartisan, you really need to pay closer attention to what they actually do rather than listening to what they say.
OK, when the Repubs had a smaller majority than the Dems have now they did all sorts of bad stuff that everybody knew was bad, but now that the Dems have a larger majority than the Repubs ever had, they can't do anything to fix what the Repubs did? Is that what you believe? You do realize that the Dems had a filibuster proof majority from January 2009 through January 2010 and even now, it requires every Republican to agree to maintain a filibuster (the Dems are only one vote short of having a filibuster proof majority). The Republicans never had a filibuster proof majority.
If you believe that the Dems do not have control of the government now with one of the largest majorities in the history of the country for any party and control of the White House, then the Republicans never had control of the government because they never had anywhere near this large of a majority.
Angle is a verbally-spastic nutball, with little logic, even less grasp of facts, and nothing to recommend her other than a knowing look while she spews phrases that lack any connection to reality.
You left out that she is not Harry Reid. I believe that most of those who plan on voting for her consider that to be her greatest asset.
I said I didn't disagree with the idea that the opposing candidate was that bad. I just wanted to make sure that people knew who that candidate was, the man who the Democrats in the Senate believe is the best man to lead them (If he's bad, what does that say about the rest of them?).
Not that I disagree with your conclusion, but are you aware that the opposing candidate is Senator Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader?
I used to work retail. Based on the fact that the price tags were not standard corporate tags, there is a possibility that what you observed is something done by local/regional management and is actually in violation of official Best Buy policy. I would recomend sending a letter/e-mail to Best Buy corporate offices complaining whenever you observe such behavior.
As an example of a way in which a Regional Manager may encourage such behavior in violation of corporate policy is an experience I had when I worked for one college bookstore. I was the manager of the bookstore of a satellite campus. My Regional Manager told me on more than one visit, "Bob (fictitious name for main campus bookstore manager) may have told you to do (some particular practice that would disguise losses), but you shouldn't do that, it is a violation of company policy." Now "Bob" had never told me to do that particular thing. In fact he had emphasized that I should do no such thing. I came to realize that my Regional Manager was in fact telling me to do what her words said not to do. She wanted to make sure that I knew how to make my numbers look better (and therefore make her numbers look better) while being able to deny suggesting that I follow that practice in violation of corporate policy. I never followed her idea because I was able to radically improve my loss numbers over my predeccesor simply by being competent.
There is nothing wrong with Best Buy charging what they charge to do this. However, from the comments here (and my experience with Best Buy) they make it seem like it is something much more complicated to do than it actually is. This is something that we should broadcast to make people aware that Best Buy (and many other retailers) make things like this appear much more complicated than they are. There are a lot of people who could and would do this for themselves if they understood how basic it is. What is unethical is Best Buy encouraging people to think this is something that only a "trained professional" can safely do.
I agree that the government should not get involved in this. If people are foolish enough to pay Best Buy for something that they could do for free, so be it.
However, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't make a stink about the fact that Best Buy does this. The reason to make a stink is not to get the government to do something about it. The reason to make a stink is to inform people about it and get them to think about whether they want to do business with a company that does this. Especially when given a litle thought, it makes one wonder where else Best Buy is nickle and diming their customers. People shop at Best Buy because they percieve it to be a less expensive place to buy stuff than other places you can go into and pick something up. Making stories like this one well known will diminish that perception.
unless you think we can have a world full of unibombers and be OK.
I believe you were referring to the Unabomber, who was a product of public schools, not home schooling.
Sometimes I wonder how this trash gets modded up.
Because if you do research on the early promoters of "education" curriculum, you discover that they frequently talked about using public schools to train children to accept beliefs that were contrary to those of thier parents.
The reason we have teacher's degrees and curriculum is because otherwise we'd have no quality control and no assurances that kids would get out of school knowing even the minimum about the world they ought to.
And how has that worked out? Oh yeah, we have kids getting out of school not knowing the minimum about the world that they need to, let alone what they ought to know. Please provide any study which shows any significant percentage of home schooled kids getting to college age without knowing how to read and write and do basic math. I would much rather have every 18 year old believing the Easter Bunny delivers eggs every spring and Santa Claus delivers gifts to good boys and girls every winter but know how to do basic math and read & write, then what we get out of our public schools. So while some public schools are better than some home schooling, overall, home schooling is superior to public school.
I wish I had mod points, if for no other reason than to offset the flamebait mod. I will have to remember your wording because it is perfect. It is understandable that some people will push back against an organization that bullies the way that the US Copyright Group does, but bomb threats are way over the line.
There is definitely an argument to be made that DDoS attacks are proportional/equivalent to some of the US Copyright Group's behaviors.
You claim that neither the war in Afghanistan nor in Iraq acheived their stated aims. I would argue that both acheived their stated aims (although there is a good chance that that will yet be reversed in Afghanistan). In Iraq, the stated aim was the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. Now, I may be mistaken but I am pretty sure that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power there. In Afghanistan, the stated aim was the removal of the Taliban from power and destroying the Al Qaeda training camps that were operating openly there, The Taliban are not in power in Afghanistan and the Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan have been destroyed. Now there is reason to believe that when we remove our troops from Afghanistan the Taliban will be able to regain power, so that war may yet prove to be a failure.
Theoretically, both adult and embryonic stem cells can be reproduced indefinitely.
I'm confused as to how net neutrality would protect against consumers being held hostage to a carrier paying for content. Are you saying that net neutrality would make it illegal for ESPN to charge ISPs for allowing the ISPs subscribers to access one of their websites? If your ISP does not pay ESPN a PER SUBSCRIBER fee, ESPN does not allow any of that ISPs subscribers to access ESPN3. That means that I am paying for other people to access ESPN3.
First, "No Child Left Behind" was written by Teddy Kennedy (maybe you've heard of him?).
Oh, never mind, I just read your last paragraph.
The summary gets one thing wrong. Antibiotic resistant bacteria are not stronger than those that are nor antibiotic resistant. As a matter of fact they are weaker. Generally, the way that bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics is by shutting down the cellular mechanism that the antibiotic uses to get into the cell. However, that cellular mechanism serves a useful function in the cell (usually to bring nutrients into the bacterial cell). When antibiotic resistant bacteria are in an environment without antibiotics they generally die off over a relatively short time-span. This is why currently most infections with antibiotic resistant bacteria occur in hospitals.
That being said, excessive use of antibiotics is still a bad thing.
Because none of the laws that the FCC is set up to enforce apply to this. The FCC cannot just make up a new regulation on anything relating to TV or radio (or other communication methods). There must first be a law which gives them the authority to do so.
Personally, I think that many of the laws authorizing regulatory agencies like the FCC are too broad to begin with.
Yes, I can almost see how MS could use the SL environment to expand some of their exisitng offerings in a way that would move those offerings from "boring, who cares" to "hey, that's sort of cool". If they were to write a client for SL for the Xbox it could have real potential. I'm not sure if MS would make it work, but I can sort of see how they might see a business opportunity. I don't play SL, but I have several friends who do. I have always thought SL was one of those things that has great potential if somebody can figure out what that potential is.
That's because Communists were Internationalists, while Hitler was a Nationalist. That is really the only difference between Hitler's political and economic philosophy and that of the Communists.