""" I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for all. """
Note what they pledge allegiance to every day in school. First is not the republic, or the nation, or the liberty, or the justice, but the flag.
Makes no sense to me either - pledges like that I also haven't seen outside of dictatorships...
It should be noted that this photo indicates at least one American doesn't surround themselves with flags, since they had to add photoshop one in.
No, those exist too, but they aren't what is being referred to.
Contrails are due to the simple fact that burning fuel in an engine produces water vapor. Hot air with a high water vapor content is exhausted from the engine into cold air. It cools. The water vapor is now over saturation point, and condenses into water or ice.
If the company is still growing then there's a good chance that investing $X million into R&D/employees/capitol improvements/whatever will result in the company improving it's market capitalization by more than $X mill. If that's the case, then that produces more value for the shareholder and is the proper choice
That's not true.
It has to be more than the expected returns of alternative investments would be for the shareholders, not just more than dividends would be.
If Treasuries are at 8% then the company better be getting better than 8% returns when it keeps the shareholders money instead of paying it out.
Can't watch video since I'm on a machine without flash (or sound for that matter), but it's Schiff.
So he'll be pointing out that the US economy is fake, that it's all borrow and consume, and the US dollar is set to drop by a huge amount. And hence you should invest all your money overseas, via his firm of course.
He's basically right in principal, though I think he underestimates just how badly the US bursting will hurt the rest of the world, and he doesn't seem to notice that the US housing bubble is a dwarf compared with the UK... On Asia he's probably right, for the end game anyway.
Owning "growth" stocks that pay no dividends is gambling pure and simple. See Enron for how easy it is to create phantom earnings - it's a little harder to do so when you have to pay that dividend out... But that isn't US specific.
I would expect Schiff to not have any huge problems with US miners (of all sorts), US agriculture, and US oil companies. He does have the reverse of the norm view that the US has more "government risk" than other countries.
As in the US is more likely to declare a "windfall profit tax" and steal your dividends when those companies do very well as the domestic economy collapses or to simply confiscate your gold, etc than say China is. The really sad thing is that he's probably right on that one...
Everyone who lives somewhere that gets its drinking water from a river which has another town upstream is already doing this. Just without the fancy steam step...
The fact that a second hand market exists means there are some people who sell there games once they no longer wish to play them.
I suspect 99% of the money they get for selling them to someone else they use to buy another game - in fact they probably just do a trade in deal in the first place...
If they can't sell that old game, because that market collapses with no buyers then they won't be able to buy new games as often. Hence new game sales fall (or prices drop, yeah right that'll ever happen).
* The democratic primary was a race for significantly longer, hence more coverage
* Obama has a better face to put on a cover if your aim is to attract people to buy the thing - see all the magazines who don't care about the news and who they put on the cover (pretty faces).
* McCain spent more time on the "Obama is the wrong because" theme, than Obama did on the "McCain is wrong because" theme. If Obama is talking about Obama, and McCain is talking about Obama it's not a surprise who the press talks about.
* Obama is a more interesting story from a news perspective. Dog bites man isn't news, man bites dog is. Old white male running for President isn't news, (relatively) young black male running for President is.
* I suspect Palin stole some of McCain's coverage too. Again (relatively) young woman is news, and pretty faces on the cover sell.
IRV is used in Australia. Australia has a two-party* system. So clearly that isn't a ailver bullet.
*OK, one party is a fixed coalition of two parties - but that coalition is defined before the elections, and never changes, so really it's two wings of a party.
There's a small part of me that wants to believe that McCain saw the writing on the wall and didn't want to go down in history as the President under whom America collapsed and hence picked Palin and started actively trying to convince people not to vote for him...
It's not certain, but you have to consider it as option. Just like you have to consider that Obama might die in office, assassinations are not unheard of in American politics.
Since Palin would take his place, that has to be considered in choosing whom to vote for. And sometimes just one consideration obliterates all others - I consider this one such case (though I don't vote in US election so I haven't really thought about it that much). My vote in previous (non-US) elections has been determined in a similar way once or twice - the guy I'd prefer in almost all ways gets excluded because of one very serious problem.
I also didn't say "die". Both George H.W. Bush and Cheney ended up being Acting President for a few hours.
The Federal Government wants some work done, they say to the people look we'll give you this money for college if you do this work. Thanks.
It's exactly the same as the Federal Government deciding it wants some computers so that the politicians can read their email, they say to Dell look we'll give you this money if you give us those computers. Thanks.
Or the Federal GOvernment deciding it wants a bigger army, they say to people look we'll give you this money if you join the army. Thanks.
Or if they want someone to change the light bulbs in the whitehouse...
It's a simple transaction. There's no coercion, there's no expansion of power.
Maybe you don't like the "for college" restriction, but surely the Federal Government can place such a clause into a private contract it enters into with an individual in salary negotiations?
Hugely disappointed seems a bit extreme. The alternative was Sarah Palin ending up taking over when McCain has problems.
Both candidates promised price controls and nationalization and "socialism" (the American variety, which is a much more general than the rest of the world means by that word).
If you are a republican no matter what (which voting for McCain/Palin would indicate) then you should be happy for Obama to win. The country is screwed - thank you Clinton and Bush and Greenspan and Bernanke - with the point of no return long passed. Both of them would have made things worse, well Obama will and McCain would have I guess. But there's a chance that when people see that the US is no longer the world's super power they might just blame Obama and usher in a couple of decades of Republican rule.
If McCain won, then it's absolutely certain that it would usher in decades of Democrat rule since there'd be nowhere for the blame to go except the Republicans (Clinton would be long forgotten). Yeah, yeah Democrat congress - no one cares buck stops with the boss.
America is broke as a country. That military overseas is going to be unaffordable reasonably soon, and the troops will have to be brought home simply because they won't be able to be paid anymore. Obama has a better chance of pulling that off than McCain without it looking like a complete failure - he can declare victory and pretend the job is done, McCain would lose a lot of face being forced to bring the troops home because the country can't afford to buy them food anymore.
Surely in science class, you teach the current theories and some history on previous theories and how they didn't work out. Plus the general scientific method stuff (you know minor things like falsifiability). Just like how in Economics class you teach the current theories and practices and some history on previous theories and practices and the general principles.
Teaching all the alternative explanations seems pretty pointless. The internet contains thousands of them after all, all claiming to be suppressed by the scientific establishment.
Scientific method is more important than critical thinking for scientific research (complete "9/11 truther" whack jobs can manage to do real science in other areas...).
Critical thinking is important, but it isn't the be all and end all of science. So why subvert science to teach it. Why not just have a critical thinking class - that can actually also look at the many non-science areas that critical thinking is important in.
The UK, for example, has Critical Thinking as an A-level subject.
I guess you could use creationism as an example of what doesn't make a scientific theory because it doesn't have any predictive power, isn't testable or falsifiable and so on. But that would just piss off the people who want you to teach it, so there's no point.
Yes, because when someone actually does steal from your bank account via knowing the routing and account numbers you are just being paranoid trying to have fewer instances of those numbers put on people's walls and plastered on the internet.
Slashdot Mirror
No, they're saying that 95% of the mass of the normal matter is in fact interaction energy between the subatomic particles.
So 5% or 5% is actually "stuff" :)
"""
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for all.
"""
Note what they pledge allegiance to every day in school. First is not the republic, or the nation, or the liberty, or the justice, but the flag.
Makes no sense to me either - pledges like that I also haven't seen outside of dictatorships...
It should be noted that this photo indicates at least one American doesn't surround themselves with flags, since they had to add photoshop one in.
No, those exist too, but they aren't what is being referred to.
Contrails are due to the simple fact that burning fuel in an engine produces water vapor. Hot air with a high water vapor content is exhausted from the engine into cold air. It cools. The water vapor is now over saturation point, and condenses into water or ice.
In your made up fantasy land maybe, but in Alaska that isn't how it is done.
It's a holding company.
So it owns other companies that pay it dividends and uses those to buy yet more companies to pay yet more dividends.
If you think Warren Buffet is a better investor than you, then go ahead. If you don't then you must be pretty good at that stock picking thing :)
That's not true.
It has to be more than the expected returns of alternative investments would be for the shareholders, not just more than dividends would be.
If Treasuries are at 8% then the company better be getting better than 8% returns when it keeps the shareholders money instead of paying it out.
You should read all my posts then. You'd hope I'm intentionally putting in all those types of errors.
And yes I saw the error as soon as I looked at preview mode - you think I can be bothered clicking Continue Editing and changing things???
There's also "norm" instead of "normal" - that wasn't an abbreviation, that was me making a similar typing error and not caring enough to fix it.
I'm sure there are others too - I don't read the articles, why would I read my own posts?
Can't watch video since I'm on a machine without flash (or sound for that matter), but it's Schiff.
So he'll be pointing out that the US economy is fake, that it's all borrow and consume, and the US dollar is set to drop by a huge amount. And hence you should invest all your money overseas, via his firm of course.
He's basically right in principal, though I think he underestimates just how badly the US bursting will hurt the rest of the world, and he doesn't seem to notice that the US housing bubble is a dwarf compared with the UK... On Asia he's probably right, for the end game anyway.
Owning "growth" stocks that pay no dividends is gambling pure and simple. See Enron for how easy it is to create phantom earnings - it's a little harder to do so when you have to pay that dividend out... But that isn't US specific.
I would expect Schiff to not have any huge problems with US miners (of all sorts), US agriculture, and US oil companies. He does have the reverse of the norm view that the US has more "government risk" than other countries.
As in the US is more likely to declare a "windfall profit tax" and steal your dividends when those companies do very well as the domestic economy collapses or to simply confiscate your gold, etc than say China is. The really sad thing is that he's probably right on that one...
Everyone who lives somewhere that gets its drinking water from a river which has another town upstream is already doing this. Just without the fancy steam step...
Everyone else does so on a longer timescale.
You'll have to tell us who he is so we can be sure not to let him hear.
Did they drop all the illusion spells???
There's a downside.
The fact that a second hand market exists means there are some people who sell there games once they no longer wish to play them.
I suspect 99% of the money they get for selling them to someone else they use to buy another game - in fact they probably just do a trade in deal in the first place...
If they can't sell that old game, because that market collapses with no buyers then they won't be able to buy new games as often. Hence new game sales fall (or prices drop, yeah right that'll ever happen).
But given the far far away bit, is it in the Earth's past light cone?
Everyone else takes the definition of "history" in this context as:
* the aggregate of past events
You seem to be taking it as:
* the continuum of events occurring in succession leading from the past to the present and even into the future
Both of which are valid, the first is far more common though.
Claiming that the statement is wrong, when it is correct according to the more common definition of the word is a bit of a stretch.
* The democratic primary was a race for significantly longer, hence more coverage
* Obama has a better face to put on a cover if your aim is to attract people to buy the thing - see all the magazines who don't care about the news and who they put on the cover (pretty faces).
* McCain spent more time on the "Obama is the wrong because" theme, than Obama did on the "McCain is wrong because" theme. If Obama is talking about Obama, and McCain is talking about Obama it's not a surprise who the press talks about.
* Obama is a more interesting story from a news perspective. Dog bites man isn't news, man bites dog is. Old white male running for President isn't news, (relatively) young black male running for President is.
* I suspect Palin stole some of McCain's coverage too. Again (relatively) young woman is news, and pretty faces on the cover sell.
Maybe you could read the damn paper.
You know the one that answers those questions.
IRV is used in Australia. Australia has a two-party* system. So clearly that isn't a ailver bullet.
*OK, one party is a fixed coalition of two parties - but that coalition is defined before the elections, and never changes, so really it's two wings of a party.
Yes, the other way can happen too.
Biden or Palin, not that hard a choice to me.
There's a small part of me that wants to believe that McCain saw the writing on the wall and didn't want to go down in history as the President under whom America collapsed and hence picked Palin and started actively trying to convince people not to vote for him...
It's not certain, but you have to consider it as option. Just like you have to consider that Obama might die in office, assassinations are not unheard of in American politics.
Since Palin would take his place, that has to be considered in choosing whom to vote for. And sometimes just one consideration obliterates all others - I consider this one such case (though I don't vote in US election so I haven't really thought about it that much). My vote in previous (non-US) elections has been determined in a similar way once or twice - the guy I'd prefer in almost all ways gets excluded because of one very serious problem.
I also didn't say "die". Both George H.W. Bush and Cheney ended up being Acting President for a few hours.
It's not a "power" it's a transaction.
The Federal Government wants some work done, they say to the people look we'll give you this money for college if you do this work. Thanks.
It's exactly the same as the Federal Government deciding it wants some computers so that the politicians can read their email, they say to Dell look we'll give you this money if you give us those computers. Thanks.
Or the Federal GOvernment deciding it wants a bigger army, they say to people look we'll give you this money if you join the army. Thanks.
Or if they want someone to change the light bulbs in the whitehouse...
It's a simple transaction. There's no coercion, there's no expansion of power.
Maybe you don't like the "for college" restriction, but surely the Federal Government can place such a clause into a private contract it enters into with an individual in salary negotiations?
Hugely disappointed seems a bit extreme. The alternative was Sarah Palin ending up taking over when McCain has problems.
Both candidates promised price controls and nationalization and "socialism" (the American variety, which is a much more general than the rest of the world means by that word).
If you are a republican no matter what (which voting for McCain/Palin would indicate) then you should be happy for Obama to win. The country is screwed - thank you Clinton and Bush and Greenspan and Bernanke - with the point of no return long passed. Both of them would have made things worse, well Obama will and McCain would have I guess. But there's a chance that when people see that the US is no longer the world's super power they might just blame Obama and usher in a couple of decades of Republican rule.
If McCain won, then it's absolutely certain that it would usher in decades of Democrat rule since there'd be nowhere for the blame to go except the Republicans (Clinton would be long forgotten). Yeah, yeah Democrat congress - no one cares buck stops with the boss.
America is broke as a country. That military overseas is going to be unaffordable reasonably soon, and the troops will have to be brought home simply because they won't be able to be paid anymore. Obama has a better chance of pulling that off than McCain without it looking like a complete failure - he can declare victory and pretend the job is done, McCain would lose a lot of face being forced to bring the troops home because the country can't afford to buy them food anymore.
You don't need to leave 9 numbers between the line numbers either, but it'd be retarded not to...
Surely in science class, you teach the current theories and some history on previous theories and how they didn't work out. Plus the general scientific method stuff (you know minor things like falsifiability). Just like how in Economics class you teach the current theories and practices and some history on previous theories and practices and the general principles.
Teaching all the alternative explanations seems pretty pointless. The internet contains thousands of them after all, all claiming to be suppressed by the scientific establishment.
Scientific method is more important than critical thinking for scientific research (complete "9/11 truther" whack jobs can manage to do real science in other areas...).
Critical thinking is important, but it isn't the be all and end all of science. So why subvert science to teach it. Why not just have a critical thinking class - that can actually also look at the many non-science areas that critical thinking is important in.
The UK, for example, has Critical Thinking as an A-level subject.
I guess you could use creationism as an example of what doesn't make a scientific theory because it doesn't have any predictive power, isn't testable or falsifiable and so on. But that would just piss off the people who want you to teach it, so there's no point.
Yes, because when someone actually does steal from your bank account via knowing the routing and account numbers you are just being paranoid trying to have fewer instances of those numbers put on people's walls and plastered on the internet.
From my NYC apartment my laptop picks up 39 wireless networks. If I take it down 40 floors to the street I detect 3.
I can guess where they measured from...