it's acceptable to slaughter adolescent animals simply because we think they taste well, but if you let one of them lick your naked body it's somehow animal abuse
Herr Rothstein, you are under arrest by order of the Grammar Nazi Party!
If you slaughter an animal and eat it, it tastes good. If you let one of the lick your naked body, it tastes well.
IIRC, Ollie's Barbeque (the defendant's restaurant in Katzenbach v. McClung) would sell food to black people, and take their money, but wouldn't let them eat inside. They could get carry-out from the back, or something along those lines. So, yeah, if his granddad was running the same kind of place as Ollie McClung, then he certainly would take their money then refuse them service.
You know, whatever the content of your post, it's a really silly idea to replace the letter "s" with a dollar sign, as an epithet. For one, epithets are much louder than solid arguments, but they're also less effective at making a point, and reflect poorly upon the speaker. For another, that particular formulation is a very tired old cliche, never a clever one and worn out long past its welcome.
Well, China has a lot of ore cards, but there are plenty of places we can build settlements that would provide us with enough ore; it's just going to take a couple of turns and we might have to shell out to get enough in the meantime.
If we get really mad, though, we can always tip the table over and spill all the hexes onto the floor; this is called the "nuclear option," and while it's pretty immature, it's effective in the limited sense that it achieves the immediate goal of not losing a trade war.
Have you ever played Settlers of Catan? I remember this one game when one player in particular got a monopoly on sheep. Everyone else was diversifying their economy. This guy wanted to control the world's supply of sheep.
Since you really do need sheep to do anything, long story short, he won the game.
Traditionally, banana republics are controlled by American corporations. Maybe that's what GP was trying to say. I don't see Chiquita propping up Obama as a military dictator, but you never know.
"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." -- Hermann Goering
I know I read one a few years ago that I couldn't seem to find from a quick Googling...anyway, the trend is significant and has been going on for quite some time.
Liberalism, throughout most of the world including France, is usually considered a center-right political philosophy. Only in America is the word "liberalism" seen as "left-wing," which I think says a lot about Americans.
I am a liberal, but I wasn't making a statement on any company's relative evil. The companies that first come to mind when talking about lobbyists are those that really need them: I simply selected a few powerful players in industries attached to some amount of long-standing controversy. Which is to say, they have a lot of lobbyists and have had them for a long time.
I specifically did not list tech companies, because they seem to be more reluctant to say something like, "All software patents should be invalidated," because most of the large firms make money off of licensing software patents, or might consider licensing patents in the future, or use them for a strategic advantage. Even when they're getting sued.
Novartis (the pharma company currently being sued) is not a software company and unless they really pull something out of left field, they will never, ever benefit in any way from software patents. Pharmaceutical companies care a lot about patents, which affect their bottom line tremendously, but their opinion of software patents can really only vary between two poles: "We don't care" and "We hate them." The extent to which they're affected is the extent to which they're against such patents. The same goes for the companies listed. A company like Google, however, likely has a more subtle take.
Who cares about the politicians? Webvention is suing a pharmaceutical company, which certainly has their own lobbyists. All they need to do now is go after Exxon-Mobil, Monsanto, Smith & Wesson, and Philip-Morris, and software patents are gone for good.
I don't see why you're complaining, I live in a competitive market and you pay less than I do, and we both pay way less than the Europeans on this thread.
Just out of curiosity, how much do you pay over there?
For comparison: I'm in a major city in Texas. On my last electric bill, I was billed for about 589 kWh of electricity, and paid $78.28, including taxes and all fees. That number includes a $17.10 installation fee (first month), so if I use roughly the same amount of electricity on the next bill, it might be a little over $60.
Of the total, $2.07 is listed as "sales tax." That would be somewhere just over 2% of the total amount. Now, maybe there are other taxes that I don't see on the bill---I've never bothered to look into it---but you can bet Texas law is pretty friendly to the energy sector. Assuming there aren't, and assuming that you pay the electric company $60/month, and that 90% of the total amount you'd pay is in taxes....you would be paying $600/month (~430 EUR) for the amount of electricity that I use. Which, incidentally, is more than my rent.
Please tell me that isn't the case, or I'll run off screaming into the night about the evils of Scandinavian socialism.
Slashdot Mirror
My kingdom for a mod point.
On the other hand, it's not really that different from Gorillaz.
I would think that, in this instance, as in all things, they would be True Neutral.
it's acceptable to slaughter adolescent animals simply because we think they taste well, but if you let one of them lick your naked body it's somehow animal abuse
Herr Rothstein, you are under arrest by order of the Grammar Nazi Party!
If you slaughter an animal and eat it, it tastes good.
If you let one of the lick your naked body, it tastes well.
We don't let adults eat minors.
All the same reasons apply to eating animals.
It's not so much about harm as it is about consent.
FTFY
IIRC, Ollie's Barbeque (the defendant's restaurant in Katzenbach v. McClung) would sell food to black people, and take their money, but wouldn't let them eat inside. They could get carry-out from the back, or something along those lines. So, yeah, if his granddad was running the same kind of place as Ollie McClung, then he certainly would take their money then refuse them service.
You know, whatever the content of your post, it's a really silly idea to replace the letter "s" with a dollar sign, as an epithet. For one, epithets are much louder than solid arguments, but they're also less effective at making a point, and reflect poorly upon the speaker. For another, that particular formulation is a very tired old cliche, never a clever one and worn out long past its welcome.
I call troll, on general principle.
A PS3, I mean.
It's not really a principled stand, but it could become one.
Well, China has a lot of ore cards, but there are plenty of places we can build settlements that would provide us with enough ore; it's just going to take a couple of turns and we might have to shell out to get enough in the meantime.
If we get really mad, though, we can always tip the table over and spill all the hexes onto the floor; this is called the "nuclear option," and while it's pretty immature, it's effective in the limited sense that it achieves the immediate goal of not losing a trade war.
Maybe, but the appropriate response isn't to roll over and take it. Equivocating only goes so far.
No, I am naked and I access Slashdot via ESP.
We just declare war on it.
War on Poverty
War on Drugs
War on Terror
And now, with this new threat to national security...War on China.
Everybody, please proceed directly to your fallout shelters.
Have you ever played Settlers of Catan? I remember this one game when one player in particular got a monopoly on sheep. Everyone else was diversifying their economy. This guy wanted to control the world's supply of sheep.
Since you really do need sheep to do anything, long story short, he won the game.
It was beer.
Well, unfortunately, SCOTUS precedent doesn't really mean anything in Canada.
It isn't a place in the mall?
Traditionally, banana republics are controlled by American corporations. Maybe that's what GP was trying to say. I don't see Chiquita propping up Obama as a military dictator, but you never know.
"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." -- Hermann Goering
Here are a few citations:
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php
http://politics.ohio.com/2010/10/osu-study-suggests-misinformation-and-fox-news-are-linked/
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2009/08/19/4431138-first-thoughts-obamas-good-bad-news
I know I read one a few years ago that I couldn't seem to find from a quick Googling...anyway, the trend is significant and has been going on for quite some time.
Of course you weren't. George Bernard Shaw wasn't even American. We should be using a synthetic script from the 1830s to encode a TLD for the USA.
Liberalism, throughout most of the world including France, is usually considered a center-right political philosophy. Only in America is the word "liberalism" seen as "left-wing," which I think says a lot about Americans.
I am a liberal, but I wasn't making a statement on any company's relative evil. The companies that first come to mind when talking about lobbyists are those that really need them: I simply selected a few powerful players in industries attached to some amount of long-standing controversy. Which is to say, they have a lot of lobbyists and have had them for a long time.
I specifically did not list tech companies, because they seem to be more reluctant to say something like, "All software patents should be invalidated," because most of the large firms make money off of licensing software patents, or might consider licensing patents in the future, or use them for a strategic advantage. Even when they're getting sued.
Novartis (the pharma company currently being sued) is not a software company and unless they really pull something out of left field, they will never, ever benefit in any way from software patents. Pharmaceutical companies care a lot about patents, which affect their bottom line tremendously, but their opinion of software patents can really only vary between two poles: "We don't care" and "We hate them." The extent to which they're affected is the extent to which they're against such patents. The same goes for the companies listed. A company like Google, however, likely has a more subtle take.
Who cares about the politicians? Webvention is suing a pharmaceutical company, which certainly has their own lobbyists. All they need to do now is go after Exxon-Mobil, Monsanto, Smith & Wesson, and Philip-Morris, and software patents are gone for good.
I don't see why you're complaining, I live in a competitive market and you pay less than I do, and we both pay way less than the Europeans on this thread.
It's pretty easy to Google it just from the information given.
Just out of curiosity, how much do you pay over there?
For comparison: I'm in a major city in Texas. On my last electric bill, I was billed for about 589 kWh of electricity, and paid $78.28, including taxes and all fees. That number includes a $17.10 installation fee (first month), so if I use roughly the same amount of electricity on the next bill, it might be a little over $60.
Of the total, $2.07 is listed as "sales tax." That would be somewhere just over 2% of the total amount. Now, maybe there are other taxes that I don't see on the bill---I've never bothered to look into it---but you can bet Texas law is pretty friendly to the energy sector. Assuming there aren't, and assuming that you pay the electric company $60/month, and that 90% of the total amount you'd pay is in taxes....you would be paying $600/month (~430 EUR) for the amount of electricity that I use. Which, incidentally, is more than my rent.
Please tell me that isn't the case, or I'll run off screaming into the night about the evils of Scandinavian socialism.