The defense attorney probably has better uses of his or her time than to fight for the rights of the public to see the document. The defense attorney can see the doc. That's the important part.
People raise kids in NYC and in other big cities. You can just put your kids in a private school, and they can take the train or the bus to get to where they want.
You've got to be kidding me. Cheers was horrible. Miami Vice was horrible. Night Court is the platonic ideal of lousy 80's TV. ST:TNG was horrible during the 80's; it didn't get good until the 90's. Max Headroom was actually pretty good.
Neither the movie nor the book was particularly good; the best part of the book was that it was short, and the best part of the movie was the nudity. Wouldn't go through either one again though.
Babylon 5 was good but not great. Way too many cliches taken from other science fiction books, movies, and television shows. JMS' stories always seemed like they were written by your smart, creative 14 year old nephew who got too much of his stuff from things he read or watched already.
Jokes aside, does anyone notice how if a show attempts to be even remotely creative these days it gets cancelled within one or two seasons of release?
Huh? Lost? 24? 30 Rock? Shows tend to be a lot more creative these days than any point in history (except maybe the first few years of television when it was all new). I mean, I grew up in the 80's and TV then was terrible. Didn't get better in the 90's. 70's reruns are almost universally bad. 50's and 60's sitcoms are offensive in their tameness.
Huhh???? That's not entrapment. That's not anywhere near entrapment. Some states may require police departments to publish locations but that has nothign to do with entrapment.
"and must wastefully spend money continuing to help Haiti."
I guarantee you that in terms of Haiti specifically any money you spend in excess of what is required to repair hurricane damage is money well-spent.
I know, that doesn't change that they started off with DRM. Perhaps selling DRM laden music was a catalyst for getting DRM free music, but I'd rather only support those who don't give in to that bullshit.
The biggest advantage of multiple monitors I've found is that they reduce eyestrain and neck pain for me. Being forced to do what we were always told to do when working at a computer -- move your head and let your eyes focus somewhere else--is great.
Right, so the accusation that they're unduly delaying the donations is a valid one. However, the accusation that they're following their business model, is not. Now you can criticize the business model as a whole on moral grounds if you wish, but arguing that they should waive the charge in this specific case makes no sense.
Capitalism* didn't put Professor Liu in prison. Communism** did.
No, no, no. China hasn't been a truly communist country since the 1980's. What put Liu in prison is authoritarian nationalism; a government that is incapable of accepting criticism.
China is a capitalist country, with a veneer of communism, slipping towards fascism, and they are not looking for world domination; they want China to be the world's superpower, and basically control Asia, but nobody in world history since Alexander the Great has ever actually looked to rule the world.
No, I think you're missing the point of the article; I really suggest you read it. The paleontologists in question do legitimate science. The science they do is based on a geological paradigm that the earth is however billions of years ago. However, they also believe as part of a personal paradigm that the earth is 6,000 years old or so. What renders what they do not science? If someone discovers a new dinosaur fossil, dates it to 70 million years ago using radiometric dating, and then meticulously classifies it into a cladistic group through morphological analysis, then publishing the results in a scholarly journal, does it stop being science because the person doing it believes that it's really just an intellectual exercise? What if they did a better job of the analysis than a believer in evolution did? Which of the papers is therefore better science?
Rand Paul didn't say segregation was good, he did not describe his thought very well though. The argument is that the federal level government should stick to the constitution and let the states handle local matters.
So Paul thinks the 14th Amendment isn't part of the Constitution?
Most people ignore the FACT that the democrat party supported segregation and the republicans opposed it.
The Democrats lost the South, which was overwhelmingly Democrat, precisely because they opposed segregation, and the Republicans gained it by supporting segregation.
Slashdot Mirror
2-3 years isn't that long...
The defense attorney probably has better uses of his or her time than to fight for the rights of the public to see the document. The defense attorney can see the doc. That's the important part.
I got a fine education from NYC public schools, up to and including college.
Taxes never go away.
By that logic the income tax will have historically always gone up or stayed the same, and never gone down.
People raise kids in NYC and in other big cities. You can just put your kids in a private school, and they can take the train or the bus to get to where they want.
Or, you can send them to public school.
Wait, you're saying someone should have donated to Japan before the disaster? Who exactly would the money go to?
You've got to be kidding me. Cheers was horrible. Miami Vice was horrible. Night Court is the platonic ideal of lousy 80's TV. ST:TNG was horrible during the 80's; it didn't get good until the 90's. Max Headroom was actually pretty good.
Neither the movie nor the book was particularly good; the best part of the book was that it was short, and the best part of the movie was the nudity. Wouldn't go through either one again though.
Babylon 5 was good but not great. Way too many cliches taken from other science fiction books, movies, and television shows. JMS' stories always seemed like they were written by your smart, creative 14 year old nephew who got too much of his stuff from things he read or watched already.
Jokes aside, does anyone notice how if a show attempts to be even remotely creative these days it gets cancelled within one or two seasons of release?
Huh? Lost? 24? 30 Rock? Shows tend to be a lot more creative these days than any point in history (except maybe the first few years of television when it was all new). I mean, I grew up in the 80's and TV then was terrible. Didn't get better in the 90's. 70's reruns are almost universally bad. 50's and 60's sitcoms are offensive in their tameness.
What do you mean exception? Are you talking about to the 4th amendment?
Chile has a functioning government and society. Haiti does not.
Huhh???? That's not entrapment. That's not anywhere near entrapment. Some states may require police departments to publish locations but that has nothign to do with entrapment.
"and must wastefully spend money continuing to help Haiti." I guarantee you that in terms of Haiti specifically any money you spend in excess of what is required to repair hurricane damage is money well-spent.
Usually it's "modern music sucks except for [insert obnoxiously bad hipster garage bands here]." Then a bunch of links to bad music.
I know, that doesn't change that they started off with DRM. Perhaps selling DRM laden music was a catalyst for getting DRM free music, but I'd rather only support those who don't give in to that bullshit.
You have GOT to be kidding me.
The biggest advantage of multiple monitors I've found is that they reduce eyestrain and neck pain for me. Being forced to do what we were always told to do when working at a computer -- move your head and let your eyes focus somewhere else--is great.
Right, so the accusation that they're unduly delaying the donations is a valid one. However, the accusation that they're following their business model, is not. Now you can criticize the business model as a whole on moral grounds if you wish, but arguing that they should waive the charge in this specific case makes no sense.
Agreed; this was a really confusing accusation.
Capitalism* didn't put Professor Liu in prison. Communism** did.
No, no, no. China hasn't been a truly communist country since the 1980's. What put Liu in prison is authoritarian nationalism; a government that is incapable of accepting criticism.
China is a capitalist country, with a veneer of communism, slipping towards fascism, and they are not looking for world domination; they want China to be the world's superpower, and basically control Asia, but nobody in world history since Alexander the Great has ever actually looked to rule the world.
Uhhh, because you think the intent of the people setting off the nuclear weapons (attack as opposed to testing) has an effect on radiation levels?
Also keep in mind GS was known for ridiculous bonuses, too.
No, I think you're missing the point of the article; I really suggest you read it. The paleontologists in question do legitimate science. The science they do is based on a geological paradigm that the earth is however billions of years ago. However, they also believe as part of a personal paradigm that the earth is 6,000 years old or so. What renders what they do not science? If someone discovers a new dinosaur fossil, dates it to 70 million years ago using radiometric dating, and then meticulously classifies it into a cladistic group through morphological analysis, then publishing the results in a scholarly journal, does it stop being science because the person doing it believes that it's really just an intellectual exercise? What if they did a better job of the analysis than a believer in evolution did? Which of the papers is therefore better science?
Rand Paul didn't say segregation was good, he did not describe his thought very well though. The argument is that the federal level government should stick to the constitution and let the states handle local matters.
So Paul thinks the 14th Amendment isn't part of the Constitution? Most people ignore the FACT that the democrat party supported segregation and the republicans opposed it.
The Democrats lost the South, which was overwhelmingly Democrat, precisely because they opposed segregation, and the Republicans gained it by supporting segregation.