And it's a news paper that happens to have the second largest circulation in the UK, second only to The Sun.
I'm not sure how things work where you live, but in most western countries, high circulation news papers have quite a bit of political pull, even if what they're spewing is ridiculous hokum.
How about posting the assumed names and covers of foreign agents?
That depends on who you ask.
If you ask the US government if it would like to know the assumed names and covers of agents in the US, who work for North Korea, Iran, Syria, Russia and China, I think they would really like to know. But on the other hand, if you ask the US government if they would like the assumed names and covers of their agents in North Korea, Iran, Syria, Russia and China, I think they'd say no.
No, it's an argument for the idiocy revolving around abstinence only education.
Here we have a big proponent of it - and I rather doubt that particular stance happened AFTER her daughter got knocked up. So either she (Sarah) didn't feel it was important enough to teach her daughter, OR she tried to teach it to her daughter and failed - quite misserably.
Alright, to be fair, it turns out she's not abstinence only, but abstinence + contraceptions - at least in 2006.
The problem with abstinence only education is that it's inherently dangerous. Biologically humans are sexually mature in their early teens. Essentially once we've hit puberty, we are able to procreate. To make an analogy, nature is handing out assault rifles and live ammo by the truckload to teenagers, and abstinence only education is essentially telling these teens they're not old enough to know what it is, so instead of telling them how to safely use the weapon, how to disassemble and reassemble it, clean it, put the safety on it, we're simply going to say 'don't touch it'. The only difference is, that you're not quite as likely to die, if you accidentally shoot yourself in the face.
The other problem is - where the hell are these kids supposed to learn about sex? Porn? I'm pretty sure if that's the way forward, you'll be facing a huge problem with the lack of children in 15 to 20 years, when these kids fail to bring children into the world, because they think sperm is supposed to be rubbed into the woman's tits (appologies to Dara O'Brien).
Same kind of thing would happen if medical care was completely privatised.
Wrong, you get the same thing if medical care was completely monopolized.
Neither of these have an impact on the case at hand.
I have never heard of a country, where upon dialling 911, 112 99 etc. you first have to answer what HMO you have, so that you can be patched through to the appropriate emergency responder.
They ALL have ONE single group of dispatchers handling the calls. These dispatchers may be government employees, they may be employees of a private contractor - but none of these are affected by socialized vs privatized vs monopolized. All emergency dispatch services are monopolized (at least inside of local areas).
Try to get your facts straight before blaming something completely unrelated. That goes for both of you.
There is a reason that emergency dispatchers are a monopoly - imagine dialling for help: ED - "What seems to be the problem"? You - "Some random woman just collapsed front of me, she's frothing at the mouth and her lips are blue!" ED - "I see. Which HMO does she have, Sir?" You - "What? She's choking here! What the hell do I do?" ED - "I heard you, but I need to know what HMO she has." You - "How the fuck should I know?!?" ED - "Does she have a wallet or a purse on her?" You - "What?!?" ED - "We need to know what HMO she has, so I can patch you through to the correct dispatcher." You - "Are you serious?" ED - "Very. The HMOs don't cross cover, and my pay is deducted if I send someone to the wrong HMO." You - "Well, I have Blue Cross, does that help?" ED - "Is this woman covered by your HMO?" You - "No, but" ED - "Sorry, then I can't patch you through to the Blue Cross dispatchers. Try checking her wallet."
Have you ever heard of such a scheme? No? I didn't think so. Like I said - the emergency dispatchers are a monopoly. You don't get special numbers you can call, that will send out special ambulances complete with trauma doctors etc., just because you have a special kind of private health insurance. You call the same number everybody else does. That doesn't change whether it's private or socialized health care.
Obviously pretty much any RTS is out of the question. War games as well. First Person Shooters. But what about other types of games?
Is it one where violence is the primary incentive or primary way to complete a game? If so, where does that place a game like Thief: The Dark Project, where violence runs counter to the spirit of the game?
Is it one where any kind of violence can take place? If so, will that not eliminate any kind of racing game, where crashes are quite violent?
Is it one where you, as a player, can inflict damage to a humanoid character? If so, what will that do to games like The Sims, where you can trap a character inside a house, letting them starve to death or set fire to the house?
What about sandbox games like Second Life, that doesn't have a specific purpose? I realise that quite a lot of people hate Second Life, but here it's a good example of a non-violent violent game. If you want it to be violent, it can be. If you don't want it to be, it won't be.
Is Mario a violent game? After all you need to kill off a lot of enemies to complete the game, or at the very least you have to avoid them killing you. Zelda? Sonic?
What about pure text based games, like Zork? Magic: The Gathering and other similar card-games that have expanded onto the computer?
Does chess count as a violent game? What about Battle Chess?
Doesn't matter. You always end up getting idiots saying things like
I won't buy one until I can get one that does 36 hours of continuous 1080p playback while running a billion DES operations per second in the background
Despite the fact that the machine they currently have provides 1½ hours of web browsing if they're lucky.
These are the same people who somehow expect to be able to buy a full hd tablet with an IPS display for less money than you'd pay for a netbook "because it's smaller".
And if you DO manage to provide them with something close to this, they'll complain that the display is too small for full hd, too large to be usefull, that it doesn't run their desired OS, doesn't have the software they "need" etc. In other words - they're the IT equivalent of the town hall screamers.
Even in the article, you get the idea that simply having links to pornography somehow constitutes reasonable suspicion that you might be a kiddy-fiddler, regardless of whether that pornography is perfectly legal and unassociated with it.
It's actually a fairly easy test:
Do you have a penis?
Do you have even the remotest access to children?
If you can answer yes to both of those questions, you are automatically suspected of being a kiddie-fiddler.
(Note, I'm using the Economics meanings of these terms.)
Fair enough. I wasn't.
I just took the words at what I saw as face value - rival as in "more than one provider" and excludable as in "no, you're not worth the possible costs to keep alive - fuck off and die".
I think you'll find that if you get hit by the beams from the LHC, you won't have to worry about obesity or cancer. And the only black hole you'll notice is the one that is the entry into your body where it hit you.
Those are all non-rival, non-excludable services. Having the government run them makes sense. Health insurance is both rival and excludable.
Look up the history of fire departments.
The only reason health insurance is rival and excludable is that the US has decided it should be. Look at pretty much every other western country, and you'll find that health insurance isn't rival nor excludable, because they see an advantage to cheap and readily accessible health care.
And I realise that part of this is because the US has somehow convinced itself that anything that even resembles social anything is somehow evil. But that doesn't mean it is the gospel truth. In fact, if you really want to be pedantic, you'll find that social medicine IS gospel truth - why else would Jesus talk about the Good Samaritan? I'm pretty sure that parable wasn't about how the priest and Levite were right in leaving the beaten and half dead jew alone.
"Fore they knew, he did not hath Health Insurance, and thus they leveath him to die in a ditch. And God looked upon these actions and saw that they were good."
I'm not a religious man, but I'm pretty sure that part isn't in the Bible.
Police? Or would you prefer to have privatized crime fighters? "Sorry, maam. You didn't pay, so we aren't interested in tracking down the person who shot your husband and kids and ran off with your jewellery".
Army? Or would you prefer it if the defence of the US was run by Xe Services LLC?
Coast guard? "I'm sorry. We can't send a helicopter out to rescue your husband and child. You didn't buy our insurance, and your credit rating shows you cannot afford to pay the US$50,000/hour it costs to run the search and rescue operation. Thank you for calling the Coast Guard - have a nice day."
Fire departments? "Well, we'd love to put out the fire in your house, but you see, you don't pay the insurance company that we work for. No, sorry, no other fire department works in this town. But if you run in and fetch US$10,000 in cash, we'd be happy to help you."
Food and drug administration? You'd prefer it if there were no government checks on the safety of foods and drugs? I suggest that you not only look at the milk scandals that hit in China a few years ago, but also look at the history of the US itself. Not just the US, but pretty much all of the western world.
Slashdot Mirror
And it's a news paper that happens to have the second largest circulation in the UK, second only to The Sun.
I'm not sure how things work where you live, but in most western countries, high circulation news papers have quite a bit of political pull, even if what they're spewing is ridiculous hokum.
I suspect the vacuum toilet is better allround than Howard Wolowitz' zero-gravity human-waste disposal system.
I'm pretty sure it wasn't.
I was pointing out that NO government wants their OWN agents revealed, while they DO want foreign agents operating on their territory revealed.
That depends on who you ask.
If you ask the US government if it would like to know the assumed names and covers of agents in the US, who work for North Korea, Iran, Syria, Russia and China, I think they would really like to know. But on the other hand, if you ask the US government if they would like the assumed names and covers of their agents in North Korea, Iran, Syria, Russia and China, I think they'd say no.
No, it's an argument for the idiocy revolving around abstinence only education.
Here we have a big proponent of it - and I rather doubt that particular stance happened AFTER her daughter got knocked up. So either she (Sarah) didn't feel it was important enough to teach her daughter, OR she tried to teach it to her daughter and failed - quite misserably.
Alright, to be fair, it turns out she's not abstinence only, but abstinence + contraceptions - at least in 2006.
The problem with abstinence only education is that it's inherently dangerous. Biologically humans are sexually mature in their early teens. Essentially once we've hit puberty, we are able to procreate. To make an analogy, nature is handing out assault rifles and live ammo by the truckload to teenagers, and abstinence only education is essentially telling these teens they're not old enough to know what it is, so instead of telling them how to safely use the weapon, how to disassemble and reassemble it, clean it, put the safety on it, we're simply going to say 'don't touch it'. The only difference is, that you're not quite as likely to die, if you accidentally shoot yourself in the face.
The other problem is - where the hell are these kids supposed to learn about sex? Porn? I'm pretty sure if that's the way forward, you'll be facing a huge problem with the lack of children in 15 to 20 years, when these kids fail to bring children into the world, because they think sperm is supposed to be rubbed into the woman's tits (appologies to Dara O'Brien).
How large is this 136 HP reactor? If it's small enough I can certainly see a great future for electric vehicles.
Tony Stark would whup Bond's ass and not even break a sweat.
Then he'd take all the Bond babes home - including Moneypenny, leaving Bond wondering just how the hell he's going to get laid in that movie.
You forgot to add that you WILL vacate your bowels and your bladder - in other words you will be crapping and pissing yourself.
Well, if you look at Sarah Palin it seems she's all for teen pregnancy and very much against sexual education.
The problem with burying your (or your child's) head in the sand, is that it leaves your ass (and other places) open to all kinds of things ...
Easy solution, even though it is outside the EU:
Take them on a nice vacation to a Swiss clinic.
On the upside of that, is that prisoners are subject to government run health care.
Neither of these have an impact on the case at hand.
I have never heard of a country, where upon dialling 911, 112 99 etc. you first have to answer what HMO you have, so that you can be patched through to the appropriate emergency responder.
They ALL have ONE single group of dispatchers handling the calls. These dispatchers may be government employees, they may be employees of a private contractor - but none of these are affected by socialized vs privatized vs monopolized. All emergency dispatch services are monopolized (at least inside of local areas).
Try to get your facts straight before blaming something completely unrelated. That goes for both of you.
There is a reason that emergency dispatchers are a monopoly - imagine dialling for help:
ED - "What seems to be the problem"?
You - "Some random woman just collapsed front of me, she's frothing at the mouth and her lips are blue!"
ED - "I see. Which HMO does she have, Sir?"
You - "What? She's choking here! What the hell do I do?"
ED - "I heard you, but I need to know what HMO she has."
You - "How the fuck should I know?!?"
ED - "Does she have a wallet or a purse on her?"
You - "What?!?"
ED - "We need to know what HMO she has, so I can patch you through to the correct dispatcher."
You - "Are you serious?"
ED - "Very. The HMOs don't cross cover, and my pay is deducted if I send someone to the wrong HMO."
You - "Well, I have Blue Cross, does that help?"
ED - "Is this woman covered by your HMO?"
You - "No, but"
ED - "Sorry, then I can't patch you through to the Blue Cross dispatchers. Try checking her wallet."
Have you ever heard of such a scheme? No? I didn't think so. Like I said - the emergency dispatchers are a monopoly. You don't get special numbers you can call, that will send out special ambulances complete with trauma doctors etc., just because you have a special kind of private health insurance. You call the same number everybody else does. That doesn't change whether it's private or socialized health care.
Yes, we all know that the ASCII animation of Episode IV was made before 1968.
What next? Are you going to point out that The Mother of all Demos is crap because you can do better things now?
Obviously pretty much any RTS is out of the question. War games as well. First Person Shooters. But what about other types of games?
Is it one where violence is the primary incentive or primary way to complete a game?
If so, where does that place a game like Thief: The Dark Project, where violence runs counter to the spirit of the game?
Is it one where any kind of violence can take place?
If so, will that not eliminate any kind of racing game, where crashes are quite violent?
Is it one where you, as a player, can inflict damage to a humanoid character?
If so, what will that do to games like The Sims, where you can trap a character inside a house, letting them starve to death or set fire to the house?
What about sandbox games like Second Life, that doesn't have a specific purpose? I realise that quite a lot of people hate Second Life, but here it's a good example of a non-violent violent game. If you want it to be violent, it can be. If you don't want it to be, it won't be.
Is Mario a violent game? After all you need to kill off a lot of enemies to complete the game, or at the very least you have to avoid them killing you. Zelda? Sonic?
What about pure text based games, like Zork? Magic: The Gathering and other similar card-games that have expanded onto the computer?
Does chess count as a violent game? What about Battle Chess?
Doesn't matter. You always end up getting idiots saying things like
Despite the fact that the machine they currently have provides 1½ hours of web browsing if they're lucky.
These are the same people who somehow expect to be able to buy a full hd tablet with an IPS display for less money than you'd pay for a netbook "because it's smaller".
And if you DO manage to provide them with something close to this, they'll complain that the display is too small for full hd, too large to be usefull, that it doesn't run their desired OS, doesn't have the software they "need" etc. In other words - they're the IT equivalent of the town hall screamers.
And how exactly do you tell if the smell is gone or your nose just gave out?
It's actually a fairly easy test:
If you can answer yes to both of those questions, you are automatically suspected of being a kiddie-fiddler.
I thought child pornography viewers were already thinking of the children?
So you're telling us that sloppy seconds is better from a reproductive point of view?
Fair enough. I wasn't.
I just took the words at what I saw as face value - rival as in "more than one provider" and excludable as in "no, you're not worth the possible costs to keep alive - fuck off and die".
I think you'll find that if you get hit by the beams from the LHC, you won't have to worry about obesity or cancer. And the only black hole you'll notice is the one that is the entry into your body where it hit you.
Obviously Jefferson was a pinko liberal commie!
</sarcasm>
Look up the history of fire departments.
The only reason health insurance is rival and excludable is that the US has decided it should be. Look at pretty much every other western country, and you'll find that health insurance isn't rival nor excludable, because they see an advantage to cheap and readily accessible health care.
And I realise that part of this is because the US has somehow convinced itself that anything that even resembles social anything is somehow evil. But that doesn't mean it is the gospel truth. In fact, if you really want to be pedantic, you'll find that social medicine IS gospel truth - why else would Jesus talk about the Good Samaritan? I'm pretty sure that parable wasn't about how the priest and Levite were right in leaving the beaten and half dead jew alone.
"Fore they knew, he did not hath Health Insurance, and thus they leveath him to die in a ditch. And God looked upon these actions and saw that they were good."
I'm not a religious man, but I'm pretty sure that part isn't in the Bible.
In what way does the FDA not impose a tax? Are they somehow magically free of charge?
ANYthing that is run by a government (local, state or federal) is paid for by taxes.
Police? Or would you prefer to have privatized crime fighters? "Sorry, maam. You didn't pay, so we aren't interested in tracking down the person who shot your husband and kids and ran off with your jewellery".
Army? Or would you prefer it if the defence of the US was run by Xe Services LLC?
Coast guard? "I'm sorry. We can't send a helicopter out to rescue your husband and child. You didn't buy our insurance, and your credit rating shows you cannot afford to pay the US$50,000/hour it costs to run the search and rescue operation. Thank you for calling the Coast Guard - have a nice day."
Fire departments? "Well, we'd love to put out the fire in your house, but you see, you don't pay the insurance company that we work for. No, sorry, no other fire department works in this town. But if you run in and fetch US$10,000 in cash, we'd be happy to help you."
Food and drug administration? You'd prefer it if there were no government checks on the safety of foods and drugs? I suggest that you not only look at the milk scandals that hit in China a few years ago, but also look at the history of the US itself. Not just the US, but pretty much all of the western world.