Looking for directions? Mapquest. Google maps has gotten me lost on countless occasions. (By doing such things as telling me to get off a highway by crossing the meridian, and exiting on the onramp for the opposite direction.)
I guess if the road is going North/South you are going to have to cross a meridian to turn off at some point...
South Africa is in the G8+5, calling them "third world" is stupid. Yes they are an emerging economy, though in the top 5 of those.
And you don't think that those labour laws could have any impact on those unemployment numbers? If you could fire someone without resorting to three official hearings and warnings, nobody would take more risks at employing people who might turn out to be incompetent?
This involves "intellectual property", an area where court rulings get crazier and crazier over time. (not necessarily because the courts are being silly, the lawmakers keep passing crazie and crazier laws).
If you received it with an offer of the source, you can just pass along that offer. Which seems to be exactly the case for passing along the link that the from the manufacturer.
But you don't complain about not being able to build your own shelters, that there aren't 500 different guns to choose from, and that games are too easy, right?
There are about 50 (46 maybe) guns in NV not counting the energy weapons, about another 40 if you count a gun mod as new gun. And there's different amo typoes (armor piercing, hollow point, and a few others).
You need to eat, drink, and sleep or you die (assuming you leave hard-core mode on, which of course you would). Ammo has a weight (again hard-core mode) and hence you can't just cart around an effectivvely infinite supply of it.
No you can't just build a shelter in the wilderness. That would make a better game, assuming it got trashed and all your stuff stolen and raiders moved in any time you left it for more than a couple of days.
Isn't fallout set a while after the nuclear oblivion, and for the very reason of finding ammo wouldn't you expect there only to be a few ammo types in use - guns that use rare ammo would have long run out of it. Same with looting ruins, all the loot would be long gone.
They don't come from Christian dogma. They come from "God created the universe to look like it was old", which isn't part of any Christian dogma I know of, but is the topic I was replying to.
From the point of view of science those two options are identical.
If the 6000 years ago bit is true, we can just continue working on the old universe idea and since God made it look like it old experiment will keep matching theory. God can just giggle at us as his brilliantly faked universe tricks us into eternal damnation as we follow the evidence. We on the other hand keep doing good science - it's what the universe looks like, so the results and discoveries and technological innovations will all end up the same anyway.
You can grow skin in a lab - something you' aren't going to do with red blood cells. The "premature cellular aging" and "oh shit we used a made them cancer" also probably doesn't matter once you applied the magic to turn them into blood.
There are a bunch of arguments for why the rich should pay more (not just dollar wise but percentage wise).
Off the top of my head:
1. They can afford to. It costs $X to run the government and lowering the burden on the poor by increasing that on the rich is considered a reasonable thing to do by many people (not you obviously).
2. They use more government resources and hence it's fair they pay more. The military provides more benefit to the rich - they lose more if the Russians invade and confiscate all the property. The legal system provides greater protection (in terms of the value protected) for their property.
3. The marginal propensity to consume falls as income rises. If you think the economy is demand driven then taking more money from the rich and less from the poor will be better for the economy.
4. Income exhibits diminishing marginal returns in terms of utility (a person earning $100,000/year gets less utility from an extra $1000 than a person earning $25,000/year does). Hence taxing the rich at higher rates than the poor will result in higher total utility than a flat percentage system.
You think evolution reached perfection and so there's no way anything could possibly boost performance without any (or any that aren't worth the trade) long term issues? Or God made it perfect?
So the "new kids" aren't the ones who are supposed to try out the new stuff? The old guys with old set in their way users should do so instead? I'm pretty sure that in almost every human endevour the "new kids" try the new things.
And what does Fedora have to do with Ubuntu's success? They're build on the back of Debian.
Slashdot Mirror
We've crossed people and bacteria...
The post he was replying to was refering to grafting plants, try reading.
I guess if the road is going North/South you are going to have to cross a meridian to turn off at some point...
More than one parent qualifying for Maternity leave is going to be difficult biologically. Paternity leave, sure, the other one could have that.
I guess a lesbian couple could argue the case, depending on how you define maternal. But that seems like a pretty rare situation.
"most jobs" != "employment right".
If "holiday time" is an "employment right" then all jobs will have it, not just most.
I don't really have free speech unless all government agencies don't infringe upon it, most of them not doing so doesn't really cut it.
That doesn't say anything about whether the US model is better or worse of course.
in Connecticut is an Indonesian news source?
South Africa is in the G8+5, calling them "third world" is stupid. Yes they are an emerging economy, though in the top 5 of those.
And you don't think that those labour laws could have any impact on those unemployment numbers? If you could fire someone without resorting to three official hearings and warnings, nobody would take more risks at employing people who might turn out to be incompetent?
This involves "intellectual property", an area where court rulings get crazier and crazier over time. (not necessarily because the courts are being silly, the lawmakers keep passing crazie and crazier laws).
Pursuing Telstra makes perfect sense since they have some leverage on the OEM manufacturers, that the pusuer likely doesn't.
You have a strange naive notion that the legal system gives a shit about something being "ridiculous".
If you received it with an offer of the source, you can just pass along that offer. Which seems to be exactly the case for passing along the link that the from the manufacturer.
But you don't complain about not being able to build your own shelters, that there aren't 500 different guns to choose from, and that games are too easy, right?
It's supposedly an RPG not a shooter.
There are about 50 (46 maybe) guns in NV not counting the energy weapons, about another 40 if you count a gun mod as new gun. And there's different amo typoes (armor piercing, hollow point, and a few others).
You need to eat, drink, and sleep or you die (assuming you leave hard-core mode on, which of course you would). Ammo has a weight (again hard-core mode) and hence you can't just cart around an effectivvely infinite supply of it.
No you can't just build a shelter in the wilderness. That would make a better game, assuming it got trashed and all your stuff stolen and raiders moved in any time you left it for more than a couple of days.
Isn't fallout set a while after the nuclear oblivion, and for the very reason of finding ammo wouldn't you expect there only to be a few ammo types in use - guns that use rare ammo would have long run out of it. Same with looting ruins, all the loot would be long gone.
out of the millions of objects and packages people make and use, printer cartidges are the only ones of the right shape and size to hold explosives.
They don't come from Christian dogma. They come from "God created the universe to look like it was old", which isn't part of any Christian dogma I know of, but is the topic I was replying to.
From the point of view of science those two options are identical.
If the 6000 years ago bit is true, we can just continue working on the old universe idea and since God made it look like it old experiment will keep matching theory. God can just giggle at us as his brilliantly faked universe tricks us into eternal damnation as we follow the evidence. We on the other hand keep doing good science - it's what the universe looks like, so the results and discoveries and technological innovations will all end up the same anyway.
You can grow skin in a lab - something you' aren't going to do with red blood cells. The "premature cellular aging" and "oh shit we used a made them cancer" also probably doesn't matter once you applied the magic to turn them into blood.
Your knowledge of the legal is clearly on par with your level of bridge ownership.
You'll have to point out where I said I actually agreed with any of those arguments I raised.
You do realise people can actually understand motivations and reasons for things that they don't actually think themselves, right?
Guess not. Oh well, that's supposed to come at 5 years of age as your brain develops, you mustn't have got their yet.
It's almost like demand increases prices or something.
There are a bunch of arguments for why the rich should pay more (not just dollar wise but percentage wise).
Off the top of my head:
1. They can afford to. It costs $X to run the government and lowering the burden on the poor by increasing that on the rich is considered a reasonable thing to do by many people (not you obviously).
2. They use more government resources and hence it's fair they pay more. The military provides more benefit to the rich - they lose more if the Russians invade and confiscate all the property. The legal system provides greater protection (in terms of the value protected) for their property.
3. The marginal propensity to consume falls as income rises. If you think the economy is demand driven then taking more money from the rich and less from the poor will be better for the economy.
4. Income exhibits diminishing marginal returns in terms of utility (a person earning $100,000/year gets less utility from an extra $1000 than a person earning $25,000/year does). Hence taxing the rich at higher rates than the poor will result in higher total utility than a flat percentage system.
#2 is retarded. #1 just claimed the guys tax rate was 57%, now the poor guys tax rate is claimed to be 35%.
35% is less than 57% so that tax setup is not regressive, it is progressive.
You seriously didn't notice that? Or are you making false claims intentionally?
That was Jesus, obviously.
How can you possibly know that?
You think evolution reached perfection and so there's no way anything could possibly boost performance without any (or any that aren't worth the trade) long term issues? Or God made it perfect?
Seems a pretty baseless assumption.
So the "new kids" aren't the ones who are supposed to try out the new stuff? The old guys with old set in their way users should do so instead? I'm pretty sure that in almost every human endevour the "new kids" try the new things.
And what does Fedora have to do with Ubuntu's success? They're build on the back of Debian.