It's called deficit spending. It's all George W did
I don't know if you noticed, but despite what some Democrats claimed would happen, George W. Bush left the office of President peacefully in January of 2009. So, it is no longer relevant what he did, he's not doing it anymore. So, if you were protesting it when George W. Bush was President, why aren't you protesting it now?
And by the way, most conservatives were unhappy with George W. Bush's spending.
Whenever flu is discussed in the context of a pandemic outbreak, everyone goes back to the 1918 pandemic and acts as if that is the most recent pandemic. There have been TWO pandemic outbreaks of flu since 1918. One in 1957-58 and another in 1968-69.
Death tolls for the pandemics:
1918-20 40 million
1957-58 1-1.5 million
1968-69.75-1 million
Now how were the latter two different from the first? Well, the first occurred right on the end of WWI and for all intents and purposes before the advent of modern medicine (which I date to the discovery of penicillin, although one might instead choose the development of sulfa drugs).
Despite the repeated attempts to drum up mass hysteria by referencing the 1918 death toll in stories on flu outbreaks, I don't believe it is justified. It is appropriate for government agencies to "gameplan" for the long shot case that we have a recurrence of 1918 death tolls. However, it is irresponsible of the media to treat that as anything more than a remote possibility.
can you say steroids for the brain?
on
Cosmetic Neurology
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Seriously, when steroids were discovered, people were saying that in the future athletes and others who needed a boost to physical prowess would take steroids. It turns out that the side effects of steroids are serious enough that in the long term the boost to downside is greater than the temporary boost unless one has a diagnosed physical ailment (even with the improvements to reduce side effects).
As to drugs which improve mental performance, people have been trying from time immemorial to find such, look up Freud and cocaine.
Oh, so in your country only the wealthy are allowed in your legislature? We have had several elections that were won because the candidate was very wealthy and used his own funds to campaign outside of the campaign finance laws (his opponent used government election funds, he didn't need them, he used his own money).
Although, now you are talking about something other than lobbying, you are talking about campaign finance, which is not the same thing. Lobbying is, in essence, asking the elected official to vote one way or the other on some bill. Generally, when we talk about lobbyists, we are referring to someone who represents a group (like the EFF, or the RIAA).
Why shouldn't the EFF be allowed to lobby the legislature?
I have a business, I am an individual, I don't have any employees. How do you make a law that affects my business' communication that doesn't affect my personal communication?
I am, also, an employee of a company, I like the company I work for a lot. How do you make a law that limits my communication as an employee of that company without limiting my communication as an individual?
No, I'm not being "overly simplistic". You did not state your point clearly enough because you focused on business. Your point apparently is that the First Amendment does not protect the right to send unsolicited email.
My point was to the many people who would have said, "Yeah, businesses shouldn't be allowed to send unsolicited email" without realizing that any law that applied to business would apply to them as well.
The problem is the EU is hurting even worse than the U.S. right now. All evidence currently points to a complete collapse of the world economy if the U.S. economy craters (which is what it would take for the dollar to collapse)
The real problem is that colleges and universities in the U.S. have learned that any sufficiently motivated student can find the money to pay for a college education, therefore there is no need to compete on price. Additionally, they have learned that being more expensive is a competitive advantage; more expensive institutions are generally viewed as better than less expensive institutions. Finally, we are constantly bombarded with the idea that if you go to college you will have a higher income than if you don't.
What I don't get is why ANY lobbyists are allowed. Ever. Anywhere.
Because sometimes groups of citizens have things that they would like their legislature do. You see when you write your legislator asking him to vote for (or against) a bill, you are lobbying him/her. Generally, we reserve the word lobbyist for someone who represents some group, for example the EFF. Let me guess, you didn't know that the EFF employs lobbyists?
Piracy is a crime and should be treated as such. If there's a rash of break-ins in your hometown you don't recommend that every home owner goes out and buys a gun,
You may not, but I would. Especially if I had reason to believe that the local police were getting a kickback from those breaking in. In this case we have reason to believe that what passes for a government in Somalia is getting at least a kickback (if not sponsoring) the pirates.
That's fine, go ahead and fire them at the next election. However, the only way to eliminate "lobbying" is to make it illegal for the people in office to talk to anyone not in government about anything. Which is strictly prohibited by the constitution.
No, Babylon is not in Africa. Babylon is in what is now Iraq. Iraq is on the continent of Asia, not Africa.
However, the problem with the OP's post is that Egypt IS in Africa and there are many ancient documents from there. And from RTFA, one discovers that 10% of the collection is from Africa.
ID says look at the signal, analyze it, try to find other explanations for apparent "design", if there isn't one, label it "designer unknown". Those scientists who proposed ID have never been given enough of a hearing to develop any type of tests for the hypothesis that some element was designed or not. Just look at the reply just after yours for someone who doesn't even consider that some characteristics of life may fit the same category of information as SETI is based on.
The fact that some of the people who have adopted the idea of ID have gone on to extend it in religious ways does not invalidate the idea itself any more than the fact that many atheists have gone on to say that the Theory of Evolution proves there is no God invalidates Evolution.
The thing that bugs me about the arguments about intelligent design is all the pot-shots taken at bad religious arguments
ID is a religious argument, despite what its proponents might have you believe. The intelligent design of life cannot be grounded in observable phenomena, and thus cannot be regarded as scientific.
Just yesterday we had an article on here from a guy involved with SETI that people were taking seriously. ID is based on the same logic as all current SETI. If ID is non-scientific, so is SETI.
What company? The one that has the rights to publish in the U.S., or the one that has the rights to publish in the U.K.? or somewhere else? It is not always the same company that publishes a book in different countries, even when the publisher has a division in both countries.
As an author, Publisher A has a division in the U.K. and in the U.S.. The U.K. division wants to publish your book, the U.S. division doesn't. Publisher B also has a division in both countries. The U.S. division of Publisher B wants to publish your book, but the U.K. division doesn't. Publisher A wants you to sign an exclusive contract for world publishing rights (even though they only intend to publish it in the U.K.). Publisher B offers you an exclusive contract only for U.S. publishing rights, leaving you free to find another publisher in the U.K.. Which contract are you going to sign?
You are right that the head line is misleading (and perhaps the author's conclusions as well). The correct conclusion from the information presented is that pirating music (or other Intellectual Property) that the Record Industry (or other legacy corporations) controls the copyright on delays the development of a new distribution model. If you believe that the RIAA business model is obsolete, get your music from artists who are attempting to use a new model to distribute their music, don't steal (before you respond that you can't steal IP, check a dictionary) music from those artists that work with the RIAA business model.
How come we are taking this guy seriously. SETI is where the ID people got their inspiration. We all know how ridiculous ID is, SETI is based on the same principles, so it is obviously ridiculous as well.
I have a series of political philosophies that should guide anyone who wants to improve the political landscape
1. When in doubt, vote the Ins, Out--If you don't have a very compelling reason to vote for the incumbent, vote for the other guy.
2. Get involved in local politics (party, township, county, etc). You can have a much larger impact on things when the group is smaller.
3. Push to have the issues you care about addressed at the lowest level of government possible (education should be local government, not national). You can have a much larger impact on things when the group is smaller.
The top wealth holders have very little "income". Do you really think that most of Warren Buffett's wealth comes from "income"? Don't you realize that most of the wealth of the Duponts, the Rockefellers, the Kennedys is tied up in trust funds that pays an "allowance" to the members of the family. That same trust fund owns the properties that the members of the family live in, pays for many of the trips they go on, etc. The trust itself is tax exempt through one means or another.
1) Don't forget: the vast majority of college professors are unabashed liberals, if not outright socialists.
There are plenty of conservative professors, they just don't fit into the Jesus and Shotgun ethic that drives the GOP today. When you decide to take an anti-intellectual approach to politics you're going to, surprise, lose the intellectuals.
Really? There are plenty of conservative professor?
According to this article http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/10/08/politics 9.2% of college professors are conservative vs, 44.1% of college professors are liberals. I have seen this in several other articles.
Can you provide any reference to support your claim?
Because a car takes me exactly where I want to go. With the train I have to have transportation to the station at one end and then transportation from the station at the other end. If I am willing to undergo this inconvenience to not drive across the country, why would I take the train instead of an airplane? The airplane will be faster across the country than the train.
Either your reading comprehension is sub-par, or you just want an argument.
I vote for the latter, as I find it difficult to believe you suck so thoroughly at understanding what you read.
All of the questions you ask, he answered before you asked:
Now, once they're born, children are the center of their parents' lives. We invest all our waking hours in them. Within the first month of their lives, we sacrifice our former selves to their development and wellbeing. They are the heart and soul of our home life. We run our finances on the edge to ensure they have a comfortable, safe, and stimulating environment.
As for your mindless ranting about 'values':
For that matter what is this term "value"? Is it how much money you are willing to spend to obtain one?
He never alluded to monetary values, that is purely your clueless twist. The only time he even mentioned value was in a completely different context:
Actually, no point of view would "coincide with the values of our society", because there is such a wide range of views.
[my emphasis]
Note that he is replying to a phrase(hint:it is in between the quote marks) that has nothing to do with money.
Congratulations on painting yourself as an imbecile with a broad brush! Well and thoroughly done!
I'm sorry, I don't understand what the word "value" means when you use it. Please define this word. If I understand the OP's world view as expressed in his post, I don't know what the word "value" means as he uses it either.
As far as I can tell, the OP believes that there is nothing more to this world than the physical, when you die, that's it. From that perspective, why do any other people have "value"?
A book with writing in it is far more valuable than a blank notebook.
So, a book with words randomly scribbled in it is more valuable than a blank book that you can write your own thoughts in? Try this experiment. buy two blank books. In one of them write a bunch of disconnected words on each page, in the other do nothing. Put them both up for sale at a yard sale. Apparently you think that the first will sell for more than the second.
There is no way to determine apriori which of two human beings is more valuable than the other. I don't believe that one human being is more valuable than another.
Slashdot Mirror
It's called deficit spending. It's all George W did
I don't know if you noticed, but despite what some Democrats claimed would happen, George W. Bush left the office of President peacefully in January of 2009. So, it is no longer relevant what he did, he's not doing it anymore. So, if you were protesting it when George W. Bush was President, why aren't you protesting it now?
And by the way, most conservatives were unhappy with George W. Bush's spending.
Whenever flu is discussed in the context of a pandemic outbreak, everyone goes back to the 1918 pandemic and acts as if that is the most recent pandemic. There have been TWO pandemic outbreaks of flu since 1918. One in 1957-58 and another in 1968-69.
.75-1 million
Death tolls for the pandemics:
1918-20 40 million
1957-58 1-1.5 million
1968-69
Now how were the latter two different from the first? Well, the first occurred right on the end of WWI and for all intents and purposes before the advent of modern medicine (which I date to the discovery of penicillin, although one might instead choose the development of sulfa drugs).
Despite the repeated attempts to drum up mass hysteria by referencing the 1918 death toll in stories on flu outbreaks, I don't believe it is justified. It is appropriate for government agencies to "gameplan" for the long shot case that we have a recurrence of 1918 death tolls. However, it is irresponsible of the media to treat that as anything more than a remote possibility.
Seriously, when steroids were discovered, people were saying that in the future athletes and others who needed a boost to physical prowess would take steroids. It turns out that the side effects of steroids are serious enough that in the long term the boost to downside is greater than the temporary boost unless one has a diagnosed physical ailment (even with the improvements to reduce side effects).
As to drugs which improve mental performance, people have been trying from time immemorial to find such, look up Freud and cocaine.
Oh, so in your country only the wealthy are allowed in your legislature? We have had several elections that were won because the candidate was very wealthy and used his own funds to campaign outside of the campaign finance laws (his opponent used government election funds, he didn't need them, he used his own money).
Although, now you are talking about something other than lobbying, you are talking about campaign finance, which is not the same thing. Lobbying is, in essence, asking the elected official to vote one way or the other on some bill. Generally, when we talk about lobbyists, we are referring to someone who represents a group (like the EFF, or the RIAA).
Why shouldn't the EFF be allowed to lobby the legislature?
I have a business, I am an individual, I don't have any employees. How do you make a law that affects my business' communication that doesn't affect my personal communication?
I am, also, an employee of a company, I like the company I work for a lot. How do you make a law that limits my communication as an employee of that company without limiting my communication as an individual?
No, I'm not being "overly simplistic". You did not state your point clearly enough because you focused on business. Your point apparently is that the First Amendment does not protect the right to send unsolicited email.
My point was to the many people who would have said, "Yeah, businesses shouldn't be allowed to send unsolicited email" without realizing that any law that applied to business would apply to them as well.
The problem is the EU is hurting even worse than the U.S. right now. All evidence currently points to a complete collapse of the world economy if the U.S. economy craters (which is what it would take for the dollar to collapse)
If the First Amendment doesn't protect a business' right to send email, it doesn't protect yours either.
The real problem is that colleges and universities in the U.S. have learned that any sufficiently motivated student can find the money to pay for a college education, therefore there is no need to compete on price. Additionally, they have learned that being more expensive is a competitive advantage; more expensive institutions are generally viewed as better than less expensive institutions. Finally, we are constantly bombarded with the idea that if you go to college you will have a higher income than if you don't.
What I don't get is why ANY lobbyists are allowed. Ever. Anywhere.
Because sometimes groups of citizens have things that they would like their legislature do. You see when you write your legislator asking him to vote for (or against) a bill, you are lobbying him/her. Generally, we reserve the word lobbyist for someone who represents some group, for example the EFF. Let me guess, you didn't know that the EFF employs lobbyists?
Piracy is a crime and should be treated as such. If there's a rash of break-ins in your hometown you don't recommend that every home owner goes out and buys a gun,
You may not, but I would. Especially if I had reason to believe that the local police were getting a kickback from those breaking in. In this case we have reason to believe that what passes for a government in Somalia is getting at least a kickback (if not sponsoring) the pirates.
That's fine, go ahead and fire them at the next election. However, the only way to eliminate "lobbying" is to make it illegal for the people in office to talk to anyone not in government about anything. Which is strictly prohibited by the constitution.
No, Babylon is not in Africa. Babylon is in what is now Iraq. Iraq is on the continent of Asia, not Africa.
However, the problem with the OP's post is that Egypt IS in Africa and there are many ancient documents from there. And from RTFA, one discovers that 10% of the collection is from Africa.
ID says look at the signal, analyze it, try to find other explanations for apparent "design", if there isn't one, label it "designer unknown". Those scientists who proposed ID have never been given enough of a hearing to develop any type of tests for the hypothesis that some element was designed or not. Just look at the reply just after yours for someone who doesn't even consider that some characteristics of life may fit the same category of information as SETI is based on.
The fact that some of the people who have adopted the idea of ID have gone on to extend it in religious ways does not invalidate the idea itself any more than the fact that many atheists have gone on to say that the Theory of Evolution proves there is no God invalidates Evolution.
The thing that bugs me about the arguments about intelligent design is all the pot-shots taken at bad religious arguments
ID is a religious argument, despite what its proponents might have you believe. The intelligent design of life cannot be grounded in observable phenomena, and thus cannot be regarded as scientific.
Just yesterday we had an article on here from a guy involved with SETI that people were taking seriously. ID is based on the same logic as all current SETI. If ID is non-scientific, so is SETI.
What company? The one that has the rights to publish in the U.S., or the one that has the rights to publish in the U.K.? or somewhere else? It is not always the same company that publishes a book in different countries, even when the publisher has a division in both countries.
As an author, Publisher A has a division in the U.K. and in the U.S.. The U.K. division wants to publish your book, the U.S. division doesn't. Publisher B also has a division in both countries. The U.S. division of Publisher B wants to publish your book, but the U.K. division doesn't. Publisher A wants you to sign an exclusive contract for world publishing rights (even though they only intend to publish it in the U.K.). Publisher B offers you an exclusive contract only for U.S. publishing rights, leaving you free to find another publisher in the U.K.. Which contract are you going to sign?
You are right that the head line is misleading (and perhaps the author's conclusions as well). The correct conclusion from the information presented is that pirating music (or other Intellectual Property) that the Record Industry (or other legacy corporations) controls the copyright on delays the development of a new distribution model. If you believe that the RIAA business model is obsolete, get your music from artists who are attempting to use a new model to distribute their music, don't steal (before you respond that you can't steal IP, check a dictionary) music from those artists that work with the RIAA business model.
How come we are taking this guy seriously. SETI is where the ID people got their inspiration. We all know how ridiculous ID is, SETI is based on the same principles, so it is obviously ridiculous as well.
I have a series of political philosophies that should guide anyone who wants to improve the political landscape
1. When in doubt, vote the Ins, Out--If you don't have a very compelling reason to vote for the incumbent, vote for the other guy.
2. Get involved in local politics (party, township, county, etc). You can have a much larger impact on things when the group is smaller.
3. Push to have the issues you care about addressed at the lowest level of government possible (education should be local government, not national). You can have a much larger impact on things when the group is smaller.
The top wealth holders have very little "income". Do you really think that most of Warren Buffett's wealth comes from "income"? Don't you realize that most of the wealth of the Duponts, the Rockefellers, the Kennedys is tied up in trust funds that pays an "allowance" to the members of the family. That same trust fund owns the properties that the members of the family live in, pays for many of the trips they go on, etc. The trust itself is tax exempt through one means or another.
You do realize that the elderly are by far the wealthiest demographic in the U.S., don't you?
1) Don't forget: the vast majority of college professors are unabashed liberals, if not outright socialists. There are plenty of conservative professors, they just don't fit into the Jesus and Shotgun ethic that drives the GOP today. When you decide to take an anti-intellectual approach to politics you're going to, surprise, lose the intellectuals.
Really? There are plenty of conservative professor?
According to this article http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/10/08/politics 9.2% of college professors are conservative vs, 44.1% of college professors are liberals. I have seen this in several other articles.
Can you provide any reference to support your claim?
Because a car takes me exactly where I want to go. With the train I have to have transportation to the station at one end and then transportation from the station at the other end. If I am willing to undergo this inconvenience to not drive across the country, why would I take the train instead of an airplane? The airplane will be faster across the country than the train.
Either your reading comprehension is sub-par, or you just want an argument. I vote for the latter, as I find it difficult to believe you suck so thoroughly at understanding what you read.
All of the questions you ask, he answered before you asked:
As for your mindless ranting about 'values':
For that matter what is this term "value"? Is it how much money you are willing to spend to obtain one?
He never alluded to monetary values, that is purely your clueless twist. The only time he even mentioned value was in a completely different context:
Actually, no point of view would "coincide with the values of our society", because there is such a wide range of views.
[my emphasis]
Note that he is replying to a phrase(hint:it is in between the quote marks) that has nothing to do with money.
Congratulations on painting yourself as an imbecile with a broad brush! Well and thoroughly done!
I'm sorry, I don't understand what the word "value" means when you use it. Please define this word. If I understand the OP's world view as expressed in his post, I don't know what the word "value" means as he uses it either.
As far as I can tell, the OP believes that there is nothing more to this world than the physical, when you die, that's it. From that perspective, why do any other people have "value"?
A book with writing in it is far more valuable than a blank notebook.
So, a book with words randomly scribbled in it is more valuable than a blank book that you can write your own thoughts in? Try this experiment. buy two blank books. In one of them write a bunch of disconnected words on each page, in the other do nothing. Put them both up for sale at a yard sale. Apparently you think that the first will sell for more than the second.
There is no way to determine apriori which of two human beings is more valuable than the other. I don't believe that one human being is more valuable than another.