I would theorize that lower startup costs mean more jobs, which is so straightforward it is almost not worth pointing out. Except for those who say the open source destroy jobs.
Men, more than women, crave respect, esp. from their significant others and on the job. This question is perseptive in many ways. Most people don't put their finger on what the problem is. Why they are upset when their wife nags them, etc.
That's not to say women don't want respect, but men just need more of it.
One man's special interest group is another's pet cause.
I generally think campaign contributions fall in two categories contrary to your description: 1) money given to those who already agree with them. Sierra Club giving money to a pro-environment lawmaker or the NRA giving money to a pro-gun rights person. They give the money because they want those to agree with them to do well. 2) Shakedowns. If you don't give lawmakers money, they won't look out for you or they will get you. Microsoft was a prime example of this. And for the record, I don't like Microsoft.
I'm a big free-market person, but in line with Adam Smith, I believe it is fine and proper to regulate monopolies. One of the best things would an a la carte option. I long for the day.
What I've generally noticed is that it would effect reporting about the going-ons with the parent company, not about general things. But even Time reported on the AOL-Time Warner mess.
Maybe you are assuming that most news sources in America are conservative because they are owned by someone. And money means conservative.
This is a typical Marxist assumption. Most news in the U.S. skews to the left. Many leftists think it is conservative because it isn't far-left communist/socialist. Well, that's correct. Most media in the U.S. isn't leftists. But that's not the same thing as unbiased.
I assure you the BBC is biased. If it is the same as your own, you probably think it is playing it straight. It isn't. That's why it's better to admit who you are. I can take news from a liberal who admits they're liberal a lot easier than from the NY Times.
While many things in 1 could have been better, I largely agree with you.
The old trilogy followed the traditional hero's journey myth, which will 9 times out of 10 make for a great movie. But new trilogy has to explain things like how the emperor took over. People, besides political junkies, just don't connect as well to that.
But the 8 year old in me always thought that Jedi action was lacking in the original trilogy. For that alone, the new trilogy is wonderful.
I agree with this. However, when Bush proposes any small cuts those effected by the cuts squeal like a stuck pig, no matter how modest the cut.
The problem is all of us, collectively. We don't want our pet program cut. We want all the others cut. So when we all get together, it's "don't cut mine if I don't cut yours."
It's the natural inclination of all legislatures to tax. Democrats tend to be a tad bit worse, but Republicans are no saints about this. So you are correct. The classification should be "politics" in general.
Slashdot Mirror
I would theorize that lower startup costs mean more jobs, which is so straightforward it is almost not worth pointing out. Except for those who say the open source destroy jobs.
I think many didn't want to be demagogued and trusted that the Supreme Court would rule it unconstitutional as it is. Whoops.
Others considered it an incumbent protection law.
Others, like McCain, are sadly genuinely for it.
If you are from Harvard, please stop reading.
Men, more than women, crave respect, esp. from their significant others and on the job. This question is perseptive in many ways. Most people don't put their finger on what the problem is. Why they are upset when their wife nags them, etc.
That's not to say women don't want respect, but men just need more of it.
The downside: he could miss out on years of convention appearances and a steady stream of income.
But he's correct. He could very easily be type-cast. I appreciate a man who is willing to take a risk like this.
"Your an idiot"?
He gets IM-related poor grammar/spelling all the time from his kids.
They still need to let people know about the limitation, even if it isn't their fault.
Besides paying for the research, how can another check on the accuracy/repeat the results without the original code?
most IMAX films frankly stink and don't take advantage of the medium. Show cool stuff on a big screen. Not hard.
One man's special interest group is another's pet cause.
I generally think campaign contributions fall in two categories contrary to your description:
1) money given to those who already agree with them. Sierra Club giving money to a pro-environment lawmaker or the NRA giving money to a pro-gun rights person. They give the money because they want those to agree with them to do well.
2) Shakedowns. If you don't give lawmakers money, they won't look out for you or they will get you. Microsoft was a prime example of this. And for the record, I don't like Microsoft.
Send his office some email detailing your concerns. Be respectful. Try to use facts. If enough of us did that, we might even have an impact.
I'm a big free-market person, but in line with Adam Smith, I believe it is fine and proper to regulate monopolies. One of the best things would an a la carte option. I long for the day.
Comcast is constantly raising fees to the point where I'm dropping things I get from them. But I hope it works out for them.
Cool! I have a foe!
The hard leftists (not all liberals) are socialists. And they carry Marxist assumptions which effect how they view the news media.
What I've generally noticed is that it would effect reporting about the going-ons with the parent company, not about general things. But even Time reported on the AOL-Time Warner mess.
Maybe you are assuming that most news sources in America are conservative because they are owned by someone. And money means conservative.
This is a typical Marxist assumption. Most news in the U.S. skews to the left. Many leftists think it is conservative because it isn't far-left communist/socialist. Well, that's correct. Most media in the U.S. isn't leftists. But that's not the same thing as unbiased.
I assure you the BBC is biased. If it is the same as your own, you probably think it is playing it straight. It isn't. That's why it's better to admit who you are. I can take news from a liberal who admits they're liberal a lot easier than from the NY Times.
While many things in 1 could have been better, I largely agree with you.
The old trilogy followed the traditional hero's journey myth, which will 9 times out of 10 make for a great movie. But new trilogy has to explain things like how the emperor took over. People, besides political junkies, just don't connect as well to that.
But the 8 year old in me always thought that Jedi action was lacking in the original trilogy. For that alone, the new trilogy is wonderful.
I can feel the good in you. Lucas hasn't driven it from you yet.
I agree with a previous poster. I would exempt the first 30,000 or so and have a flat tax after that.
I should mention that the richest 1% in 2001 made 17% of all income. So their "fair share" would be 17%, not 33%.
A system in which the majority says "we'll tax that minority more but not impose the same tax on ourselves" is quite simply immoral.
I agree with this. However, when Bush proposes any small cuts those effected by the cuts squeal like a stuck pig, no matter how modest the cut.
The problem is all of us, collectively. We don't want our pet program cut. We want all the others cut. So when we all get together, it's "don't cut mine if I don't cut yours."
Make people write a check so they can see how much they are actually taxed. Everything will then fall into place.
It's the natural inclination of all legislatures to tax. Democrats tend to be a tad bit worse, but Republicans are no saints about this. So you are correct. The classification should be "politics" in general.
female foreigners. Cheap joke, but I had to go for it.