For fuck sake. You can't even bring yourself to not qualify with 'a small %age of us "Republicans"'.
So are you claiming that the bulk of politicians comprise that small percentage of Republicans? Or do you just not understand English? Or is logical argument just not your strong suit?
Because such violations benefit the party currently in control. And politicians are not renowned for thinking ahead enough to realize that the other side will be in control one day, nor are they renowned for putting their principles before their party.
Bush wasn't a dictator. Bush also kept some promises and broke other promises and once in office found things different than they looked before he got their.
So how is any of that evidence that something good has changed?
Does anybody actually choose a search engine? Type the search in the address field seems the normal technique - and on a stock IE that will use bing, on chrome google, and with firefox I would suspect google too.
In America while laundering money for terrorists is considered a bad thing and a serious matter, that is being counterbalanced by the fact that it was a bank and bank's are not allowed to be seriously harmed - doing so would be more evil than funding those terrorists.
What would happen to you if you were caught handling $200 trillion of drug money? All you assets seized by the government and you spending the rest of your life in prison seems a likely outcome. When a bank does it? A fine (oh noes, their profits took a 17% hit) and no one goes to jail.
The benefits of talking aren't worth the risks. You aren't getting your wallet back either way.
Prosecutors are of course even worse than police, they don't have the "your kid has been kidnapped, the risk of talking to the police it well worth it" factor.
And you asked each an every one of those families about their visa status. None of them could actually be green card holders or citizens after all, right?
If your ideal world is one without life as we know at, then sure eliminate CO2 completely.
I suspect most people consider being alive part of an ideal world though and wiping out all the photosynthesizers, followed shortly by the rest of the food chain isn't doesn't count as ideal.
If you live in a high crime neighborhood your home and contents insurance will cost more (in terms of cost per amount covered) than that of someone living in a low crime area.
If you have a higher chance of running up large health bills than your health insurance should be more expensive.
The obvious conclusion is that health care is unsuitable for an primarily insurance model and some other method of allocating health care resources (and allocating resources towards health care) should be used by society.
If it did result in a nuclear boom, it would be declared a successful test and hopefully didn't destroy some obvious infrastructure that satellites have been photographing.
Sure that's an incentive to favor US dollars over bitcoins, but it's got nothing to do with the fact that the ability to mint bitcoins (or print dollars) isn't supposed to be the main incentive to use them.
I don't disagree. My Kerbal Space Program planes are much safer when they have a single engine - the two engine variants tend to flat spin when one engine flames just before the other out due to lack of air at stupid altitudes, and with essentially no air the control surfaces don't work either. And one engine snapping off at take off always ends badly too.
Of course it has the worst aerodynamic model I've ever had fun playing.
Slashdot Mirror
For fuck sake. You can't even bring yourself to not qualify with 'a small %age of us "Republicans"'.
So are you claiming that the bulk of politicians comprise that small percentage of Republicans? Or do you just not understand English? Or is logical argument just not your strong suit?
Do you have reading comprehension issues? Or did the editors stealth update the title?
Because such violations benefit the party currently in control. And politicians are not renowned for thinking ahead enough to realize that the other side will be in control one day, nor are they renowned for putting their principles before their party.
You don't think the spec of a $20 million contract will be specific about just what that 500m of movement means?
You don't need to be a dictator to torture, and you don't need to torture to be a dictator.
Huh?
Bush wasn't a dictator. Bush also kept some promises and broke other promises and once in office found things different than they looked before he got their.
So how is any of that evidence that something good has changed?
Does anybody actually choose a search engine? Type the search in the address field seems the normal technique - and on a stock IE that will use bing, on chrome google, and with firefox I would suspect google too.
In America while laundering money for terrorists is considered a bad thing and a serious matter, that is being counterbalanced by the fact that it was a bank and bank's are not allowed to be seriously harmed - doing so would be more evil than funding those terrorists.
What would happen to you if you were caught handling $200 trillion of drug money? All you assets seized by the government and you spending the rest of your life in prison seems a likely outcome. When a bank does it? A fine (oh noes, their profits took a 17% hit) and no one goes to jail.
The benefits of talking aren't worth the risks. You aren't getting your wallet back either way.
Prosecutors are of course even worse than police, they don't have the "your kid has been kidnapped, the risk of talking to the police it well worth it" factor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_pumping is a way to make money doing that. Though I think the rules were changed recently to try and stop that - ah there it is: http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/07/21/1646249/fcc-tariff-changes-mean-no-more-free-conference-calls
And you asked each an every one of those families about their visa status. None of them could actually be green card holders or citizens after all, right?
The most people are idiots.
Which is relevant, how?
There were no machine guns or landmines used in any of those, so yes.
If your ideal world is one without life as we know at, then sure eliminate CO2 completely.
I suspect most people consider being alive part of an ideal world though and wiping out all the photosynthesizers, followed shortly by the rest of the food chain isn't doesn't count as ideal.
As any rational person should.
If you live in a high crime neighborhood your home and contents insurance will cost more (in terms of cost per amount covered) than that of someone living in a low crime area.
If you have a higher chance of running up large health bills than your health insurance should be more expensive.
The obvious conclusion is that health care is unsuitable for an primarily insurance model and some other method of allocating health care resources (and allocating resources towards health care) should be used by society.
If it did result in a nuclear boom, it would be declared a successful test and hopefully didn't destroy some obvious infrastructure that satellites have been photographing.
And again, what does that have to do with the ability to personally print your own money being an important factor in usage of a currency?
Sure that's an incentive to favor US dollars over bitcoins, but it's got nothing to do with the fact that the ability to mint bitcoins (or print dollars) isn't supposed to be the main incentive to use them.
Without the ability to print currency what incentive is there for me to use US dollars?
Do you know what a bond is (in this context)?
Obviously you use the "because it is there" version when talking about space travel. So why bother adding that?
I didn't want to have to define not, so I just skipped it.
That's the point. It wastes a bunch of words explaining what an ion is.
If you don't know what an ion is the rest of the words are going to make any sense anyway.
I don't disagree. My Kerbal Space Program planes are much safer when they have a single engine - the two engine variants tend to flat spin when one engine flames just before the other out due to lack of air at stupid altitudes, and with essentially no air the control surfaces don't work either. And one engine snapping off at take off always ends badly too.
Of course it has the worst aerodynamic model I've ever had fun playing.