Those who put up the money. They generally get the rewards. If you are able to get financial backing and are smart and things break your way, you should get rewards to. But if I do amazing things for my company, we already have an arrangement. They get my labor for a salary.
That's a long way around the barn to say: reward comes with risk.
Let the guy make his points and disagree where you feel appropriate. But there is no need to preface it with a comment. You could say that about anyone trying to make an argument.
Opposition was stopped by sanctions but my Saddam's brutality. Sanctions were largely ineffective and allowed Saddam to create the Oil for Food corruption. He bribed politicians all over the world.
People complained about ineffective sanctions. Then they complained about removing him by force. In other words, no real solutions were offered to the group of people who actually wanted to do something.
If they lose and lose badly in court, people wouldn't be able to complain about all the lost liberties due to the Patriot Act. Now, people can still say we are losing unnamed liberties without having to establish that belief with legal reasoning.
Europeans are no different than say the Japanese. The Europeans had the opportunity to fight and dominate. If other countries were in the same position, they would have done the same things. The Nazis were a particular ideology though. Communism did a number in China. It's nothing inherent in Europe.
Until they are lobbying for something you agree about. The right to petition the government is a very essential right. Lobbyists, for good and ill, are a part of that right.
This is a concern with the YouTube system. If the reports turn out to be true, a bunch of pro-jihadists get together and complain about anti-jihad videos on YouTube.
Being concerned about anti-jihad videos being banned at YouTube is no troll.
"Please tell me how you think theism is falsifiable - please tell me of any measurement I can make to show that your belief that the universe is governed by laws set by an omnipotent god is in any way false. Please tell me how you think theism which lacks this basic feature of any scietific statement could in some way be the ground of the scientific method."
The scientific method is not a scientific falsifiable theory. It is how you falsify or confirm scientific theories.
In a similar way, theism can be shown to be true because it must be assumed in order to make sense out of reality and our experience. If God is the ground of all being, this makes sense. The denial of theism destroys the ground of rationality, morality, etc.
Non-theists have to borrow from theism while denying the necessary basis for it.
Obviously, I'm just giving you a broad overview of the argument.
Years of observing doesn't guarantee they will stay the same.
I start with the assumption that the laws of physics are grounded on a God who orders and sustains the universe as He has promised to do.
Physical laws which are rooted on nothing mean they could change, stay the same, go back and forth...who knows?
Miracles doesn't mean the whole paradigm shifts. The possibility of a miracle doesn't necessitate a whole new set of physics each time a miracle theoretically happens.
Slashdot Mirror
Those who put up the money. They generally get the rewards. If you are able to get financial backing and are smart and things break your way, you should get rewards to. But if I do amazing things for my company, we already have an arrangement. They get my labor for a salary.
That's a long way around the barn to say: reward comes with risk.
that you can put your extremeties next to the power source. That will prevent frostbite.
"Like a true spinner"
Let the guy make his points and disagree where you feel appropriate. But there is no need to preface it with a comment. You could say that about anyone trying to make an argument.
...they just wanted a different outcome to keep them off-guard on all the other election cycles.
or at least the freedom to outsource were confident that, ultimately, outsourcing would be a net benefit for everyone. For India and for America.
This seems to be confirmation of that.
with $40 billion in the bank.
I'm not knocking Microsoft here. I'm just saying it's easier.
Tom, how could I have been so stupid?
People not being able to vote due to paper jams. More moving parts will be problematic.
He had no connection to 9/11 but he had connections to terrorists and to al Qaeda.
0 406170840.asp
Here is an older article that covers some of this: http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy20
Opposition was stopped by sanctions but my Saddam's brutality. Sanctions were largely ineffective and allowed Saddam to create the Oil for Food corruption. He bribed politicians all over the world.
People complained about ineffective sanctions. Then they complained about removing him by force. In other words, no real solutions were offered to the group of people who actually wanted to do something.
If they lose and lose badly in court, people wouldn't be able to complain about all the lost liberties due to the Patriot Act. Now, people can still say we are losing unnamed liberties without having to establish that belief with legal reasoning.
because they got modest tweaks.
Seems like they realized the courts weren't sympathetic to their legal arguments.
how conservatives believe the Internet can be used?
Conservatives aren't motivated to rig Google. Guilty as charged. That's not the same as using the Internet.
Nothing wrong with self-sacrifice. But there is nothing inherently wrong with making money for yourself, your family, and others either.
from bias are the most enslaved to bias.
Looking for life or organic compounds coming from Earth to Mars via meteorites. That is a reasonable scenario worth looking into.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4677663.st m
This is a closer up pic that was in the news a few weeks ago.
Europeans are no different than say the Japanese. The Europeans had the opportunity to fight and dominate. If other countries were in the same position, they would have done the same things. The Nazis were a particular ideology though. Communism did a number in China. It's nothing inherent in Europe.
I'm assuming a bunch of pro-jihad people banded together and complained enough to get her anti-jihad videos removed from YouTube.
Until they are lobbying for something you agree about. The right to petition the government is a very essential right. Lobbyists, for good and ill, are a part of that right.
This is a concern with the YouTube system. If the reports turn out to be true, a bunch of pro-jihadists get together and complain about anti-jihad videos on YouTube.
Being concerned about anti-jihad videos being banned at YouTube is no troll.
Watching all our actions and then asking us to mail in a rebate. What's not to love?
"Please tell me how you think theism is falsifiable - please tell me of any measurement I can make to show that your belief that the universe is governed by laws set by an omnipotent god is in any way false. Please tell me how you think theism which lacks this basic feature of any scietific statement could in some way be the ground of the scientific method."
The scientific method is not a scientific falsifiable theory. It is how you falsify or confirm scientific theories.
In a similar way, theism can be shown to be true because it must be assumed in order to make sense out of reality and our experience. If God is the ground of all being, this makes sense. The denial of theism destroys the ground of rationality, morality, etc.
Non-theists have to borrow from theism while denying the necessary basis for it.
Obviously, I'm just giving you a broad overview of the argument.
Probabilities still rest on the future being like the past.
Years of observing doesn't guarantee they will stay the same.
I start with the assumption that the laws of physics are grounded on a God who orders and sustains the universe as He has promised to do.
Physical laws which are rooted on nothing mean they could change, stay the same, go back and forth...who knows?
Miracles doesn't mean the whole paradigm shifts. The possibility of a miracle doesn't necessitate a whole new set of physics each time a miracle theoretically happens.