You can always tell when you hit upon someone's real motives.
To these people it is not a question of the law, but how the law may be manipulated to further a socialist agenda.
So you think that a government bureaucracy could run things more efficiently?
Wouldnt this affect customer service negatively? If i dont have the option of taking my business elsewhere, what incentive do they have to provide good service?
Who determines how much to charge for the services? Perhaps you think that because its nationalized that it would be "free"?
If all our telecom companies are put out of business by lawyers looking to make a quick buck off of this, how can we make phone calls at all?
I think this bill makes the best of a bad situation for the telecom companies, which are a critical component of our economy. Do you think they will likely be believe the "trust me" line again when asked to do something like this?
Naah, they are too busy using Iraqi babies as skeet shooting targets while using oil money $100 bills to light their cigars.
That is, when they arent listening in on my phone calls to my mother in canada telling me about her hemmerhoids.
The companies that sell the books also buy them back at the end of the semester. If the book is obsolete, the price they will pay is about 5% of the original cost.
What they dont tell you is that these books will be used at other colleges (junior colleges and other lessor schools) where they will be sold again as "used" for 80% of the "new" price.
This is how they make money off of the "new book revisions" that come out every year.
My main problem with accenture is that they will take someone with a psychology degree, send them to a 2-3 week training camp on how to program in C, Java, whatever, and then send them to the client to rack up the billable hours.
It amazes me that companies let them get away with staffing such underqualified individuals at their expense.
Also, having dealt with such individuals, it is maddening to try to get any work out of them. The most basic computer science concepts are missing...
What a brilliant idea. Taken to its logical conclusion:
There is a theory that allowing people to resist theft will motivate robbers to arm themselves, creating an arms race we are not willing to win, and therefore people will be safer if kept unarmed. Unfortunately, the government's failure to take this idea to its logical conclusion deprives you of much of the benefit. The government should consider outlawing resistance of any kind -- armed or not -- against criminals, with severe prison sentences for violators. Criminals who offer evidence against resisting victims can be given amnesty for their own offenses, as well as rewards (funded, I suppose, by stiff fines against the resister).
With such a policy, robbers would have no need to carry dangerous weapons at all -- a hand-held video camera would suffice. The robber would film the victim while making his demand, and if the victim refused to pay up the robber would simply turn the tape over to the police and have the victim arrested, fined, convicted and imprisoned. Once criminals no longer require the threat of violence to do their jobs, you will enjoy the safety you desire.
After trying 4-5 others available at the various chain stores (best buy, office max, office depot), i finally broke down and got Herman Miller. The price is around $1000 USD, but its worth every penny. I can sit in this chair for 8+ hours and my ass wont hurt.
99% of chairs that rely on foam padding of one type or another are FAIL. The padding evenutally wears out, and then your stuck sitting on a piece of plywood. My tailbone would start hurting after about an hour.
If your serious, Herman Miller is the way to go. All others pale in comparison.
Obama is also in favor of Card Check, which would further degrade our competitiveness in world markets by allowing labor unions to (even more than they do today) use intimidation tactics to swell their membership.
Labor Unions provide no socially redeeming value today other than as a mandatory source of campaign revenue for a select few. The labor unions of old gave us the labor laws that we have today, and i thank them for that, but modern labor unions (at least in the US) are a joke.
The theory in Texas, where I live, is that citizens have the right to privacy and freedom from unwarranted searches and seizures. Since it is likely that a burglar will behave violently against anyone who resists him, burglary of an occupied dwelling is considered a violent crime and it is reasonable for the resident to presume his life to be in danger. To prosecute a burglar's killer, the state must prove that the killer knew that he could have stopped the crime and captured the burglar alive without endangering himself. (People think Americans are gun-mad, but we're not. If you Brits were allowed to shoot burglars, many more of you would want guns, too.)
The Marxist theory, in contrast, is that all property _really_ belongs to the government, which in turn allows private citizens to possess it for the time being (e.g. for the sake of economic efficiency). Therefore, the true victim of the burglary is not the householder but only the government, whose allocation of property the burglar has challenged. Stopping the burglar is therefore none of the householder's business. At best, he could volunteer information to the government that the burglar may be violating its will -- and let the government take any action it considers to be in its interest. This is the theory behind England's change in laws over the past fifty years or so.
There is also the theory that allowing people to resist theft will motivate robbers to arm themselves, creating an arms race we are not willing to win, and therefore people will be safer if kept unarmed. Unfortunately, the government's failure to take this idea to its logical conclusion deprives you of much of the benefit. The government should consider outlawing resistance of any kind -- armed or not -- against criminals, with severe prison sentences for violators. Criminals who offer evidence against resisting victims can be given amnesty for their own offenses, as well as rewards (funded, I suppose, by stiff fines against the resister).
With such a policy, robbers would have no need to carry dangerous weapons at all -- a hand-held video camera would suffice. The robber would film the victim while making his demand, and if the victim refused to pay up the robber would simply turn the tape over to the police and have the victim arrested, fined, convicted and imprisoned. Once criminals no longer require the threat of violence to do their jobs, Englishmen will enjoy the safety they desire.
"This is simply another example of the Bush administration engaging in wishful thinking. We're doing well with broadband because we say it's true. The Iraq War has been a huge success because we say it's true. The economy is strong because we say it's true. Global warming is a myth because we say it's true."
Allow me to correct your partisan statement:
This is simply another example of Liberals engaging in rigid group thinking. We're not doing well with broadband because we say it's true. The Iraq War has been a huge failure because we say it's true. The economy is weak because we say it's true. Global warming is real because we say it's true.
"Another form of censorship involves controlling the media. The current administration does this primarily by blacklisting reporters who don't play nicely."
When the question itself is biased, I wouldnt either. Many of the questions start with a false supposition.
Reporter: It is Well Known(tm) that American Troops are killing all the Iraqi babies they can find, why would the Administration say that they have ordered these killings? Bush: No order has been given to kill babies. Reporter: So how many Dead Babies is enough for the Administration? Bush: No order has been given to kill babies.... ad infinitum
Everyone says this but when you get down to it, they cannot provide one example of lost freedom. Sure we spy on foreigners. But not as much as they spy on us (seriously, what tech are we going to steal from china?). And dont get me started on the missile technology given to the chicoms for a few campaign dollars by the Clintons.
What freedoms have we gained?
Our civil rights have expanded with the sunset of the so called "Assault Weapons Ban". If we are lucky the supreme court will restore the civil rights of those living in New York, Chicago, and other locales where the constitution imposed limitation on government has been violated.
Actually, the president is more concerned with saving american lives than playing politics with the democrats. The democrats have been out to get him since they convinced themselves that the election was stolen in 2000.
Dealing with democrats and others that are not interested in our security only detracts from the real job at hand, which is winning the war that we are currenly in.
Someone denying that we are even in a war in:
3
2
1...
Slashdot Mirror
You can always tell when you hit upon someone's real motives. To these people it is not a question of the law, but how the law may be manipulated to further a socialist agenda.
Corporations are EVIL, don't you know?
Yes, this is another good opportunity to HURT them and make them PAY.
Thats an interesting solution.
So you think that a government bureaucracy could run things more efficiently?
Wouldnt this affect customer service negatively? If i dont have the option of taking my business elsewhere, what incentive do they have to provide good service?
Who determines how much to charge for the services? Perhaps you think that because its nationalized that it would be "free"?
If all our telecom companies are put out of business by lawyers looking to make a quick buck off of this, how can we make phone calls at all?
I think this bill makes the best of a bad situation for the telecom companies, which are a critical component of our economy. Do you think they will likely be believe the "trust me" line again when asked to do something like this?
I think not.
Naah, they are too busy using Iraqi babies as skeet shooting targets while using oil money $100 bills to light their cigars. That is, when they arent listening in on my phone calls to my mother in canada telling me about her hemmerhoids.
Ah yes. Wizardry and Ultima IV on the Apple ][. Good memories.
You are missing the second part of the scam.
The companies that sell the books also buy them back at the end of the semester. If the book is obsolete, the price they will pay is about 5% of the original cost.
What they dont tell you is that these books will be used at other colleges (junior colleges and other lessor schools) where they will be sold again as "used" for 80% of the "new" price.
This is how they make money off of the "new book revisions" that come out every year.
My main problem with accenture is that they will take someone with a psychology degree, send them to a 2-3 week training camp on how to program in C, Java, whatever, and then send them to the client to rack up the billable hours.
It amazes me that companies let them get away with staffing such underqualified individuals at their expense.
Also, having dealt with such individuals, it is maddening to try to get any work out of them. The most basic computer science concepts are missing...
Yeah, its 100% the opposition party thats doing it.
The ones in power are helpless to do anything about it. After all, they are just victims. /sarc off
Come on, learn to think for yourself instead of reverting to groupthink on everything that has to do with politics.
What a brilliant idea. Taken to its logical conclusion: There is a theory that allowing people to resist theft will motivate robbers to arm themselves, creating an arms race we are not willing to win, and therefore people will be safer if kept unarmed. Unfortunately, the government's failure to take this idea to its logical conclusion deprives you of much of the benefit. The government should consider outlawing resistance of any kind -- armed or not -- against criminals, with severe prison sentences for violators. Criminals who offer evidence against resisting victims can be given amnesty for their own offenses, as well as rewards (funded, I suppose, by stiff fines against the resister). With such a policy, robbers would have no need to carry dangerous weapons at all -- a hand-held video camera would suffice. The robber would film the victim while making his demand, and if the victim refused to pay up the robber would simply turn the tape over to the police and have the victim arrested, fined, convicted and imprisoned. Once criminals no longer require the threat of violence to do their jobs, you will enjoy the safety you desire.
1. Convert digital media to metal punch cards. Include schematics on decoding. ... (Wait 1000 years?)
2. Boost payload into solar orbit
3.
4. Profit!
Because everyone else is doing it...
Hey, free money!
The long term plan of Chinese global cultural manifest destiny continues.
After trying 4-5 others available at the various chain stores (best buy, office max, office depot), i finally broke down and got Herman Miller. The price is around $1000 USD, but its worth every penny. I can sit in this chair for 8+ hours and my ass wont hurt. 99% of chairs that rely on foam padding of one type or another are FAIL. The padding evenutally wears out, and then your stuck sitting on a piece of plywood. My tailbone would start hurting after about an hour. If your serious, Herman Miller is the way to go. All others pale in comparison.
Clearly the fault of the Bush Administration.
Obama is also in favor of Card Check, which would further degrade our competitiveness in world markets by allowing labor unions to (even more than they do today) use intimidation tactics to swell their membership.
Labor Unions provide no socially redeeming value today other than as a mandatory source of campaign revenue for a select few. The labor unions of old gave us the labor laws that we have today, and i thank them for that, but modern labor unions (at least in the US) are a joke.
Amazing that it was (along with the B-52) designed using sliderules.
The theory in Texas, where I live, is that citizens have the right to privacy and freedom from unwarranted searches and seizures. Since it is likely that a burglar will behave violently against anyone who resists him, burglary of an occupied dwelling is considered a violent crime and it is reasonable for the resident to presume his life to be in danger. To prosecute a burglar's killer, the state must prove that the killer knew that he could have stopped the crime and captured the burglar alive without endangering himself. (People think Americans are gun-mad, but we're not. If you Brits were allowed to shoot burglars, many more of you would want guns, too.)
The Marxist theory, in contrast, is that all property _really_ belongs to the government, which in turn allows private citizens to possess it for the time being (e.g. for the sake of economic efficiency). Therefore, the true victim of the burglary is not the householder but only the government, whose allocation of property the burglar has challenged. Stopping the burglar is therefore none of the householder's business. At best, he could volunteer information to the government that the burglar may be violating its will -- and let the government take any action it considers to be in its interest. This is the theory behind England's change in laws over the past fifty years or so.
There is also the theory that allowing people to resist theft will motivate robbers to arm themselves, creating an arms race we are not willing to win, and therefore people will be safer if kept unarmed. Unfortunately, the government's failure to take this idea to its logical conclusion deprives you of much of the benefit. The government should consider outlawing resistance of any kind -- armed or not -- against criminals, with severe prison sentences for violators. Criminals who offer evidence against resisting victims can be given amnesty for their own offenses, as well as rewards (funded, I suppose, by stiff fines against the resister).
With such a policy, robbers would have no need to carry dangerous weapons at all -- a hand-held video camera would suffice. The robber would film the victim while making his demand, and if the victim refused to pay up the robber would simply turn the tape over to the police and have the victim arrested, fined, convicted and imprisoned. Once criminals no longer require the threat of violence to do their jobs, Englishmen will enjoy the safety they desire.
"This is simply another example of the Bush administration engaging in wishful thinking. We're doing well with broadband because we say it's true. The Iraq War has been a huge success because we say it's true. The economy is strong because we say it's true. Global warming is a myth because we say it's true."
Allow me to correct your partisan statement:
This is simply another example of Liberals engaging in rigid group thinking. We're not doing well with broadband because we say it's true. The Iraq War has been a huge failure because we say it's true. The economy is weak because we say it's true. Global warming is real because we say it's true.
Fixed.
"Another form of censorship involves controlling the media. The current administration does this primarily by blacklisting reporters who don't play nicely."
...
When the question itself is biased, I wouldnt either. Many of the questions start with a false supposition.
Reporter: It is Well Known(tm) that American Troops are killing all the Iraqi babies they can find, why would the Administration say that they have ordered these killings?
Bush: No order has been given to kill babies.
Reporter: So how many Dead Babies is enough for the Administration?
Bush: No order has been given to kill babies.
ad infinitum
You have been flagged for re-education. Please report to the PC re-education camp nearest you (or just watch MSNBC for a couple weeks).
Our thought-police overlords will set you straight.
Well said sir!
Are posters really required to have multiple accounts to get logical arguments heard on this site?
What freedoms have we lost?
Everyone says this but when you get down to it, they cannot provide one example of lost freedom. Sure we spy on foreigners. But not as much as they spy on us (seriously, what tech are we going to steal from china?). And dont get me started on the missile technology given to the chicoms for a few campaign dollars by the Clintons.
What freedoms have we gained?
Our civil rights have expanded with the sunset of the so called "Assault Weapons Ban". If we are lucky the supreme court will restore the civil rights of those living in New York, Chicago, and other locales where the constitution imposed limitation on government has been violated.
Of course it is. But we must not let facts or legitimate concerns get in the way of the Bush bashing.
Have an original thought for yourself!
All these group-think "bush is evil" posts get boring after the second one.
Actually, the president is more concerned with saving american lives than playing politics with the democrats. The democrats have been out to get him since they convinced themselves that the election was stolen in 2000. Dealing with democrats and others that are not interested in our security only detracts from the real job at hand, which is winning the war that we are currenly in. Someone denying that we are even in a war in: 3 2 1 ...