My first thought was that these Senators disagreed with the findings that cellphone usage on airplanes was safe and thus are pushing their flawed incorrect view.
I actually miss smoking sections in restaurants for this reason, it was much better to eat there as that most parents wouldn't eat in the smoking section. And when I worked in the business back while in school, I found the smoking section folks drank more alcohol and tipped better too, but that's another topic altogether.
Here's my tips to finding good restaurants to eat at in places with a smoking ban.
#1 - Preference restaurants with bars and sit in/at the bar. This one is the big one since children are not allowed in the bar and many restaurants that feature a bar area are also sufficiently separated from the general dining area so that even if the restaurant would match a later criteria it's still a good choice. #2 - Avoid restaurants with a children's menu or have a quantity of items priced under $10. The lack of low priced items drives away customer's with children. Since the kids will often be a picky eater the parents won't want to spend a lot of money. When you're talking a familiy of four that goes out and a bill that will probably be between $50-60 before taxes, the waste of food would drive a lot of parents mad. The kids menu and cheaper prices usually means smaller portions and much less wasted food that the parent's aren't as bothered by.
The difference between a protest and a DDoS is that the protest which may or may not block access is capable of clearly demonstrating its views and what it's opposing. A DDoS conveys no such additional message. The parallel comparison between a DDoS attack and something similar in the meatspace would be to erect a bland and featureless wall around a business and then have one person in city in another country standing on the corner of an intersection yelling about whatever problem the business is apparently engaging in.
I think you might be confused. He's talking about S. Korea. Based on national boundaries, the only land trading partner that S. Korea has is N. Korea. Because of that the vast majority of S. Korean trade goods, both in an out, pass through seaports.
I thought the hippies hated nuclear because it increased energy production which increased human population which leads to the rape of earth as they likely call it.
Theft of service is the specific crime, I believe. You can get charged with this for throwing trash in a dumpster that doesn't belong to you or you have permission to use.
The I-400 series used a catapult to launch the plane. It was fastoned with pontoons so it would land on the water. It would taxi up to the submarine where a crane would lift it back onto the submarine and have its wings folded up and pontoons removed for storage.
That's correct. A lot of people make a mistake of looking at the battle in Europe and ignoring the political aspects that had taken place regarding how the Western front shaped up. The EAC zones of control had been established before the Yalta conference, I believe, and we definitely established before the Allies even entered Germany. Since the Combined Chiefs of Staff failed to give Eisenhower any orders or guidance on how to handle entering the Soviet zone (which contained Berlin) Eisenhower was basically at a point where he didn't actually have the authority to withdraw units out of the Soviet zone and was potentially going in opposition to the CCS if he did infact withdraw Allied units if the Soviets wanted to occupy their zone.
I've been reading Eisenhower At War (written by his grandson David) and this has been a fascinating eye opener about the Allied fronts during World War II. I think one thing people often forget is that the western front was far more complicated than the eastern front. It wasn't just nations acting independently towards a united goal the Allies were nations acting collectively towards the same goal. Eisenhower to manage not only the military aspects of the front but also all the politics involved with having both British, American, and latter French goals trying to be pushed through his command that he had to deal with. Comparatively, the Soviets had Soviet goals and politics to deal with and no other coalition member.
Often overlooked is that the Hiroshima bomb pretty much did destroy an army. Japan's Second General Army was headquartered and based out of Hiroshima. Most of the military units, logistical units, and the majority of the command staff were destroyed by the bomb.
Your revisionism is just as bad. The Soviets were never a party to the Geneva convention. This results in a major shift in how the eastern front developed. At the most basic level, it meant that Germans were not going to surrender (regardless of whatever insane order Hitler may have issued) because they would not have been offered the protections provided by the Geneva convention. This also created a bad feedback loop as the Germans would fight tooth and nail until the end over surrender which would necessitate larger numbers of Soviet troops which in turn would require more German troops that would still fight tooth and nail. This would be exacerbated since Soviet soldiers were expected to fight to the death.
Contrast that against the Western front where that wasn't the case. Instead of brutally slaughtering each other Germany did commit surrenders to the Allies. The Ruhr pocket (around 700,000 total soldiers) saw at most a fatality rate of 15-17% at the top end. Surrender was an option here and when that's available war is more humane and fatalities drop. Further, once the Allies started crossing the Rhine in force (which preceded the collapse of Germany resistance on the Western front) they started floating and holding the idea of refusing to accept surrenders or even permit refuge traffic to pass through their lines in the hopes that Germany would capitulate sooner. The Germans were essentially withdrawing units to delay the Russians so as to evacute as much of the civilian population as possible into Allied territory to save them from the Soviets.
In the end a Soviet flag was flying over Berlin because Eisenhower made the decision that 100,000 casualties weren't worth it for what amounted to a political objective. The Soviets were only ever in that position because Hitler made the decision that there should be no retreat, leading to a larger slaughter of German soldiers than was necessary, and Germany failed to contain and eliminate the Overlord beachhead which lead to divisions being transfered from the Eastern to Western front.
Destroying the chemicals in Syria is not an acceptable option. They are still dealing with a Civil War and attempting to bring in outsiders to conduct the destruction is a problem. Syria gets the responsibility of transporting the weapons to a Syrian port (meaning Syria is taking the largest risk) where they are loaded onto a cargo ship or US military vessels with warship escorts.
No other neighboring nation would likely want the weapons transported in or across their country for fear of an accident and even so most of the neighbors (Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq) aren't desirable for various reasons. Israel wouldn't accept it out of concern for intention Syrian sabotage. Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq aren't stable enough. Turkey might take them for destruction but that's iffy since now they have to deal with the transportation hazard and issue if there's an accident.
At this point you're pretty much guaranteed that a naval transport is the option so the question is whether another nation would accept them for destruction (unlikely) or if it just makes sense to destroy at sea and dump the harmless residue.
The option they chose is very safe, unlikely to suffer accidents that would affect anyone other than Syrians, and due to the destruction and dumping occurring in International water avoids the extremely annoying issue of negotiations between nation states.
I'm slightly confused. Mostly because I don't see the need to 1. get the payload into the sun immediately and 2. get the payload into the sun period. As far as I'm concerned I don't see much value in attempting to keep most of the space between Earth and Sol clear of debris so if the delta-v necessary to get a payload into an orbit around Sol is cost effective, then why not?
I'm confused. The reparations were imposed by the allies because of the perceived damage inflicted by Germany in the Great War. This totaled to about 50 billion which Germany was more than capable of paying off. Germans were just unwilling to pay it off because it would have required increased taxation. The Germans were also unwilling to do so because Germany didn't suffer a military defeat in the Great War which also helped feed a lot of the tensions in between the two World Wars and helped to feed the German unwillingness to pay reparations.
It certainly didn't help that Germany got raked over the coals so heavily because of their alliances that dragged them into the war because every other nation she was allied with was impoverished so Germany was left holding the bag. Austria fucked Germany hard.
The majority of women pay attention to their appearance for two reasons. The first is that society has conditioned them that they need to be attractive to get men. The second is that they do it to one up each other.
This was my initial thought. Was it the museum visit or was the it the singling out and elevating of the students as special or different from their peers that had the effect.
Slashdot Mirror
My first thought was that these Senators disagreed with the findings that cellphone usage on airplanes was safe and thus are pushing their flawed incorrect view.
I actually miss smoking sections in restaurants for this reason, it was much better to eat there as that most parents wouldn't eat in the smoking section. And when I worked in the business back while in school, I found the smoking section folks drank more alcohol and tipped better too, but that's another topic altogether.
Here's my tips to finding good restaurants to eat at in places with a smoking ban.
#1 - Preference restaurants with bars and sit in/at the bar. This one is the big one since children are not allowed in the bar and many restaurants that feature a bar area are also sufficiently separated from the general dining area so that even if the restaurant would match a later criteria it's still a good choice.
#2 - Avoid restaurants with a children's menu or have a quantity of items priced under $10. The lack of low priced items drives away customer's with children. Since the kids will often be a picky eater the parents won't want to spend a lot of money. When you're talking a familiy of four that goes out and a bill that will probably be between $50-60 before taxes, the waste of food would drive a lot of parents mad. The kids menu and cheaper prices usually means smaller portions and much less wasted food that the parent's aren't as bothered by.
I see you subscribe to the universal solution as originally proposed by Javik.
First number is USA's count. Second number is China's count. Third number is world-wide total.
Aircraft Carriers: 10 [55.5%] / 1 [5.5%] / 18
Amphibious Assault Ship: 9 [39.1%] / 0 [0%] / 23
Landing Ship: 21 [43.8%] / 26 [54.2%] / 48
Cruiser: 22 [78.6%] / 0 [0%] / 28
Destroyer: 62 [36.3%] / 24 [14%] / 171
Frigate: 24 [6.1%] / 45 [10.9%] / 411
Corvette: 2 [0.7%] / 8 [2.7%] / 301
Patrol Boat: 209 [17.6%] / 236 [19.8%] / 1,190
Anti-Mine Ship: 14 [3.2%] / 107 [24.2%] / 443
Missile Sub: 14 [28.6%] / 5 [10.2%] / 49
Attack Sub: 57 [14.3%] / 55 [13.8%] / 398
All Ships: 445 [14.5%] / 507 [16.5%] / 3,074
Tonnage: 3,415,893 / 659,578
The difference between a protest and a DDoS is that the protest which may or may not block access is capable of clearly demonstrating its views and what it's opposing. A DDoS conveys no such additional message. The parallel comparison between a DDoS attack and something similar in the meatspace would be to erect a bland and featureless wall around a business and then have one person in city in another country standing on the corner of an intersection yelling about whatever problem the business is apparently engaging in.
That is the person who represents those who suffered financial damage. Who the hell are you to call otherwise?
Justice is blind. It doesn't matter what the harmed think. It's a criminal prosecution.
I think you might be confused. He's talking about S. Korea. Based on national boundaries, the only land trading partner that S. Korea has is N. Korea. Because of that the vast majority of S. Korean trade goods, both in an out, pass through seaports.
I thought the hippies hated nuclear because it increased energy production which increased human population which leads to the rape of earth as they likely call it.
Theft of service is the specific crime, I believe. You can get charged with this for throwing trash in a dumpster that doesn't belong to you or you have permission to use.
The I-400 series used a catapult to launch the plane. It was fastoned with pontoons so it would land on the water. It would taxi up to the submarine where a crane would lift it back onto the submarine and have its wings folded up and pontoons removed for storage.
That's correct. A lot of people make a mistake of looking at the battle in Europe and ignoring the political aspects that had taken place regarding how the Western front shaped up. The EAC zones of control had been established before the Yalta conference, I believe, and we definitely established before the Allies even entered Germany. Since the Combined Chiefs of Staff failed to give Eisenhower any orders or guidance on how to handle entering the Soviet zone (which contained Berlin) Eisenhower was basically at a point where he didn't actually have the authority to withdraw units out of the Soviet zone and was potentially going in opposition to the CCS if he did infact withdraw Allied units if the Soviets wanted to occupy their zone.
I've been reading Eisenhower At War (written by his grandson David) and this has been a fascinating eye opener about the Allied fronts during World War II. I think one thing people often forget is that the western front was far more complicated than the eastern front. It wasn't just nations acting independently towards a united goal the Allies were nations acting collectively towards the same goal. Eisenhower to manage not only the military aspects of the front but also all the politics involved with having both British, American, and latter French goals trying to be pushed through his command that he had to deal with. Comparatively, the Soviets had Soviet goals and politics to deal with and no other coalition member.
Often overlooked is that the Hiroshima bomb pretty much did destroy an army. Japan's Second General Army was headquartered and based out of Hiroshima. Most of the military units, logistical units, and the majority of the command staff were destroyed by the bomb.
Your revisionism is just as bad. The Soviets were never a party to the Geneva convention. This results in a major shift in how the eastern front developed. At the most basic level, it meant that Germans were not going to surrender (regardless of whatever insane order Hitler may have issued) because they would not have been offered the protections provided by the Geneva convention. This also created a bad feedback loop as the Germans would fight tooth and nail until the end over surrender which would necessitate larger numbers of Soviet troops which in turn would require more German troops that would still fight tooth and nail. This would be exacerbated since Soviet soldiers were expected to fight to the death.
Contrast that against the Western front where that wasn't the case. Instead of brutally slaughtering each other Germany did commit surrenders to the Allies. The Ruhr pocket (around 700,000 total soldiers) saw at most a fatality rate of 15-17% at the top end. Surrender was an option here and when that's available war is more humane and fatalities drop. Further, once the Allies started crossing the Rhine in force (which preceded the collapse of Germany resistance on the Western front) they started floating and holding the idea of refusing to accept surrenders or even permit refuge traffic to pass through their lines in the hopes that Germany would capitulate sooner. The Germans were essentially withdrawing units to delay the Russians so as to evacute as much of the civilian population as possible into Allied territory to save them from the Soviets.
In the end a Soviet flag was flying over Berlin because Eisenhower made the decision that 100,000 casualties weren't worth it for what amounted to a political objective. The Soviets were only ever in that position because Hitler made the decision that there should be no retreat, leading to a larger slaughter of German soldiers than was necessary, and Germany failed to contain and eliminate the Overlord beachhead which lead to divisions being transfered from the Eastern to Western front.
Poland?
Double duty as in house pest exterminators.
Destroying the chemicals in Syria is not an acceptable option. They are still dealing with a Civil War and attempting to bring in outsiders to conduct the destruction is a problem. Syria gets the responsibility of transporting the weapons to a Syrian port (meaning Syria is taking the largest risk) where they are loaded onto a cargo ship or US military vessels with warship escorts.
No other neighboring nation would likely want the weapons transported in or across their country for fear of an accident and even so most of the neighbors (Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq) aren't desirable for various reasons. Israel wouldn't accept it out of concern for intention Syrian sabotage. Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq aren't stable enough. Turkey might take them for destruction but that's iffy since now they have to deal with the transportation hazard and issue if there's an accident.
At this point you're pretty much guaranteed that a naval transport is the option so the question is whether another nation would accept them for destruction (unlikely) or if it just makes sense to destroy at sea and dump the harmless residue.
The option they chose is very safe, unlikely to suffer accidents that would affect anyone other than Syrians, and due to the destruction and dumping occurring in International water avoids the extremely annoying issue of negotiations between nation states.
I'm slightly confused. Mostly because I don't see the need to 1. get the payload into the sun immediately and 2. get the payload into the sun period. As far as I'm concerned I don't see much value in attempting to keep most of the space between Earth and Sol clear of debris so if the delta-v necessary to get a payload into an orbit around Sol is cost effective, then why not?
I'm confused. The reparations were imposed by the allies because of the perceived damage inflicted by Germany in the Great War. This totaled to about 50 billion which Germany was more than capable of paying off. Germans were just unwilling to pay it off because it would have required increased taxation. The Germans were also unwilling to do so because Germany didn't suffer a military defeat in the Great War which also helped feed a lot of the tensions in between the two World Wars and helped to feed the German unwillingness to pay reparations.
It certainly didn't help that Germany got raked over the coals so heavily because of their alliances that dragged them into the war because every other nation she was allied with was impoverished so Germany was left holding the bag. Austria fucked Germany hard.
Knowing that, I'd bet you're a Bieber believer, too!
I believe they call themselves Beliebers.
Lordy, too many coddled pussies need to be slapped in the face with the dead rotten fish of reality.
Unfortunately that fish is too often a herring and confuses people when they think it's red.
The majority of women pay attention to their appearance for two reasons. The first is that society has conditioned them that they need to be attractive to get men. The second is that they do it to one up each other.
No. I don't want to date a pussy.
I take offense at this line. No followup "I already have one"? Goes from +5 Funny to +1 Informative.
The way I read the summary it sounded like Spamhaus was seeking revenge over being subjected to a DDoS and desiring to use government to enact it.
This was my initial thought. Was it the museum visit or was the it the singling out and elevating of the students as special or different from their peers that had the effect.
Lack of power of attorney over his father.