Ever heard of a place called Canada? It was a part of the UK long after the U.S. became independent. Most of the people in Canada speak English and refer to the citizens of the U.S. as Americans.
Right, that's why there were news stories earlier this year about emergency rooms in the UK leaving patients in the ambulance for 4 or more hours so they could meet the governments promise of reducing emergency room waiting times to under 1 hour (the clock didn't start until you actually entered the emergency room, so the time spent at the emergency room in the ambulance didn't count).
Thank you for your insight, Anonymous. Without the trade embargo, certainly there would have been computers in Cuba before this (most tech companies here have way more than enough money to bribe a Castro or two). How do you bribe a man who owns a country into risking losing control over said country? In 2005 Forbes magazine estimated his wealth at $550 million. That estimate is either ridiculously low (for all intents and purposes, Fidel Castro owned all of Cuba and all companies doing business there--the part actually doing business in Cuba) or he was a man who money meant nothing to. In either case, it is hard to imagine how one would bribe him.
"Persian or Afghani" ? You mean indo-European ? Those are countries, not ethnic groups. You cannot recognize an Afghan from a Dutch, except for language and predisposition to blowing himself up (oh sorry it's called "religion") Actually, ethnic group does apply. The base of the word ethnic is the Greek word ethnos, meaning nation. Now, as to whether the term "ethnic group" has any useful meaning is a matter of debate. Personally, I think that when the members of the ethnic group generally self identify themselves as members of the ethnic group, the term has some use.
Yes, that is plausible, but that is not the explanation that Hans offered when he was on the stand. The explanation that Hans offered was not plausible. As has been stated repeatedly, if he hadn't testified the jury quite likely would not have convicted him. Hans testified and offered contradictory and implausible explanations for suspicious activities.
Now that he has been found guilty, perhaps you should explain why you think he is innocent? People are innocent until proven guilty. Hans was never proven guilty, therefore he is innocent. How do you know he wasn't proven guilty? Did you sit through the trial and hear all of the evidence? The jury did and they thought that he was proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. They could be wrong, but unless you sat through the entire trial you are not in a position to categorically state that they are wrong.
In the U.S., once you have asked for a lawyer, if they continue to question you before your lawyer arrives, the courts will almost always throw out anything that you say. The courts often throw out any evidence that is gathered based on what you said.
Habeas Corpus as a legal term has nothing to do with the victim of murder. As a legal term, Habeas Corpus refers to the concept that an imprisoning authority must bring the imprisoned person before a judicial authority and justify keeping the individual imprisoned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus
Two points, what does "performed admirably" mean? That is not a statement that really tells me much about how accurate the model was. A statement like "predicted actual temperature variations to within x%" or "predicted average temperature variation in the US to within x% of actual average temperature variation" would be a statement that told me something about how well the model is at predicting temperature change. Second, there isn't a scientific consensus on Global Warming as a man caused phenomena, there are many scientists who question the GW orthodoxy.
However, along with this big temperature increase we ALSO have an entire body of scientists with models that seem to describe past events really, really well - and even have a pretty decent track record over the last 10 years. These models ALSO implicate man-released CO2 in the warming. If these models do such a good job, how come every time I see a report about attempting to use one of these climate models to predict the climate of the second half of the 20th century does the report state that the model isn't even close to the actual record?
It is not mentioning helping others that gets you labeled a socialist. It is wanting to help others with someone else's money (taxes). I have yet to see someone who talked about using their own resources to help others get labeled a socialist.
However, when you want to use my resources to help others, then I will call you a socialist. It is my decision how I use my resources (money, property, time). The fact is that those most opposed to using tax dollars to help others are the ones most likely to use their own money to help others.
If that is your thinking you should think hard about crossing any international border. Every country I have ever heard of has similar rules governing customs check points.
Since it seems unlikely people on Facebook are going to confess to be being a major drug trafficker, or show video clips of their last home invasion rape and robbery, I can't really see the value to society of wasting law enforcement resources clogging up the criminal justice system with the parade of Facebook petty crimes.
I know of at least one case in the U.S. that was solved because the perpetrators posted a video of them committing a crime. I believe it was a murder case (although it may have been a gangrape). I think I read about a second case, but I'm not as sure of that.
Think twice (and then three or four times for good measure) the next time someone tells you to vote Democrat in order to protect your rights.
Anybody who votes republican whilst not being a zillionaire is a sucker. Plain and simple. One who has swallowed the total lie that republicans are less tax-happy than the democrats. Democrats tax now, but republicans tax later by inflating deficits and the debt.
Don't believe me? Google for US federal deficit charts...
You do know that more wealthy Americans are registered Democrat than Republican, don't you?
Even if states simplify the process, it's still a burden. I'd have to track all my Ebay sales across 50 states, and mail-in 50 separate tax returns to each one! At current postage rates that's $22 down the drain, plus the time wasted, just because I sell a few unwanted DVDs/games out of my living room. No, you would have to track your sales tax over much more than just the 50 states. New York has 62 separate sales tax jurisdictions. Oh yeah, just because the postal address you shipped to is one of the listed jurisdictions, that doesn't mean that that is the tax that applies. U.S. Post Office addresses do not exactly correlate with local political boundaries. I used to work for a guy who sold things at Computer Shows throughout the northeast US. On more than one occasion various vendors at a show were charging different rates because they thought the show was in a different tax area.
This "study" is a computer simulation. Computer simulations have a place in science, but before they are the basis for policy, they need to be tested in the real world.
These scientists have tested a postulate in a computer simulation, that scents are diminished by the scent chemicals reacting with pollutants (especially ozone). Now they have to test that in the real world.
The FCC has the authority it has been given by Congress. The FTC has the authority it has been given by Congress. When Congress passed the law to mandate the transition to digital, they included provisions giving the FCC the authority to enforce the changeover.
The FCC does not "allocate spectrum for the greatest public good". The FCC allocates the spectrum according to guidelines laid down by Congress.
Let me see if I have it straight. The BBC is an organization that you have to pay to support, but you have no way to influence what it does or how it provides its service? If you don't like its programming, you can choose not to watch, but this only effects its finances if you get rid of your TV's completely. If you don't like its programming you can petition your MP, but your MP has essentially no power over the BBC. So, you trust the bureaucrats who run the BBC more than you trust people who are responsible to either voters (the Republican Party...if people vote against them they have no power of any kind), or to their customers (big industry...if people don't buy what they are selling they go bankrupt)?
That didn't express clearly the absolute incredulity I have at the thought that you put more trust in people who, from what you said, appear to be essentially unaccountable than in people who at least can be held to some level of accountability for their actions.
If you are driving in heavy traffic and you leave more than a car length in front of you, someone will move into it. If after that happens someone else will move into it. Before long cars will be passing you on the right, the only way to prevent that will be to reduce the gap in front of you.
Sorry, that wouldn't work, because then the guy behind you would switch lanes to get in front of you. Then the guy behind him, and so on, forcing you to slow down to maintain that distance.
If the article accurately reflects the study, the study does not support the headline. "Relaxed" is not the opposite of "violent".
The argument for video games making people more violent is that people have an innate resistance to killing others and that playing video games reduces that innate resistance. Whether this theory is valid or not, this study doesn't address the issue at all.
It still means bad things are about to happen when the defense team is studying offense tactics What defense, this is the Air Force we are talking about? Despite the name (Defense Department) the military is about offense. The best description of the job of the military I have seen is: "break things and kill people."
What upsets me is that the waiting lists for MRI scans for legitiment medical uses can be weeks or even months long (in Canada at least), while these expensive machines, and the scarce qualified persons that operate them, are tied up for completely "frivilous", and likely totally useless purposes.
In the US, there is little to no waiting for an MRI scan, If one MRI lab is busy, call the one next door (ok, that is slight exageration). Some of the clients of marketers are MRI labs. I regularly hear/see ads from one MRI lab or another telling me why I should get my MRI done by them rather than the other guy. I guess that is just one more example of how much better the Canadian health system is over the US health system.
No, they aren't afraid of somebody getting hurt [directly] by a Nerf gun. They're concerned about the consequences when somebody sees a bunch of people running around carrying weapons - and calls 911. Or decides to tackle the 'weapon wielder'. Or raises a vigilante posse to go after the 'weapon wielder'. Etc... Etc... You're close, what they are concerned about is people getting the idea that guns can be fun and getting a real gun, going to a shooting range and learning how to use it. Then the students might realize that guns aren't evil, in and of themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
Ever heard of a place called Canada? It was a part of the UK long after the U.S. became independent. Most of the people in Canada speak English and refer to the citizens of the U.S. as Americans.
Right, that's why there were news stories earlier this year about emergency rooms in the UK leaving patients in the ambulance for 4 or more hours so they could meet the governments promise of reducing emergency room waiting times to under 1 hour (the clock didn't start until you actually entered the emergency room, so the time spent at the emergency room in the ambulance didn't count).
Yes, that is plausible, but that is not the explanation that Hans offered when he was on the stand. The explanation that Hans offered was not plausible. As has been stated repeatedly, if he hadn't testified the jury quite likely would not have convicted him. Hans testified and offered contradictory and implausible explanations for suspicious activities.
In most states, it is entirely up to the defendant as to whether or not there is a jury trial.
In the U.S., once you have asked for a lawyer, if they continue to question you before your lawyer arrives, the courts will almost always throw out anything that you say. The courts often throw out any evidence that is gathered based on what you said.
Habeas Corpus as a legal term has nothing to do with the victim of murder. As a legal term, Habeas Corpus refers to the concept that an imprisoning authority must bring the imprisoned person before a judicial authority and justify keeping the individual imprisoned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus
Two points, what does "performed admirably" mean? That is not a statement that really tells me much about how accurate the model was. A statement like "predicted actual temperature variations to within x%" or "predicted average temperature variation in the US to within x% of actual average temperature variation" would be a statement that told me something about how well the model is at predicting temperature change. Second, there isn't a scientific consensus on Global Warming as a man caused phenomena, there are many scientists who question the GW orthodoxy.
It is not mentioning helping others that gets you labeled a socialist. It is wanting to help others with someone else's money (taxes). I have yet to see someone who talked about using their own resources to help others get labeled a socialist.
However, when you want to use my resources to help others, then I will call you a socialist. It is my decision how I use my resources (money, property, time). The fact is that those most opposed to using tax dollars to help others are the ones most likely to use their own money to help others.
If that is your thinking you should think hard about crossing any international border. Every country I have ever heard of has similar rules governing customs check points.
Since it seems unlikely people on Facebook are going to confess to be being a major drug trafficker, or show video clips of their last home invasion rape and robbery, I can't really see the value to society of wasting law enforcement resources clogging up the criminal justice system with the parade of Facebook petty crimes.
I know of at least one case in the U.S. that was solved because the perpetrators posted a video of them committing a crime. I believe it was a murder case (although it may have been a gangrape). I think I read about a second case, but I'm not as sure of that.Don't believe me? Google for US federal deficit charts...
You do know that more wealthy Americans are registered Democrat than Republican, don't you?This "study" is a computer simulation. Computer simulations have a place in science, but before they are the basis for policy, they need to be tested in the real world.
These scientists have tested a postulate in a computer simulation, that scents are diminished by the scent chemicals reacting with pollutants (especially ozone). Now they have to test that in the real world.
The FCC has the authority it has been given by Congress. The FTC has the authority it has been given by Congress. When Congress passed the law to mandate the transition to digital, they included provisions giving the FCC the authority to enforce the changeover.
The FCC does not "allocate spectrum for the greatest public good". The FCC allocates the spectrum according to guidelines laid down by Congress.
Let me see if I have it straight. The BBC is an organization that you have to pay to support, but you have no way to influence what it does or how it provides its service? If you don't like its programming, you can choose not to watch, but this only effects its finances if you get rid of your TV's completely. If you don't like its programming you can petition your MP, but your MP has essentially no power over the BBC. So, you trust the bureaucrats who run the BBC more than you trust people who are responsible to either voters (the Republican Party...if people vote against them they have no power of any kind), or to their customers (big industry...if people don't buy what they are selling they go bankrupt)?
That didn't express clearly the absolute incredulity I have at the thought that you put more trust in people who, from what you said, appear to be essentially unaccountable than in people who at least can be held to some level of accountability for their actions.
If you are driving in heavy traffic and you leave more than a car length in front of you, someone will move into it. If after that happens someone else will move into it. Before long cars will be passing you on the right, the only way to prevent that will be to reduce the gap in front of you.
Sorry, that wouldn't work, because then the guy behind you would switch lanes to get in front of you. Then the guy behind him, and so on, forcing you to slow down to maintain that distance.
If the article accurately reflects the study, the study does not support the headline. "Relaxed" is not the opposite of "violent".
The argument for video games making people more violent is that people have an innate resistance to killing others and that playing video games reduces that innate resistance. Whether this theory is valid or not, this study doesn't address the issue at all.
What upsets me is that the waiting lists for MRI scans for legitiment medical uses can be weeks or even months long (in Canada at least), while these expensive machines, and the scarce qualified persons that operate them, are tied up for completely "frivilous", and likely totally useless purposes.
In the US, there is little to no waiting for an MRI scan, If one MRI lab is busy, call the one next door (ok, that is slight exageration). Some of the clients of marketers are MRI labs. I regularly hear/see ads from one MRI lab or another telling me why I should get my MRI done by them rather than the other guy. I guess that is just one more example of how much better the Canadian health system is over the US health system.