While a large portion of our historical knowledge comes from texts, that doesn't automatically imply that ancient texts should all be taken at face value.
So, say you run across an ancient tome. How can you determine whether its claims are true?
The two places to look in order to verify its veracity would be other texts written by independent authors in the same era and physical evidence. So, for a couple (contrived) examples:
1) Authors in France, England, Germany and Denmark all mention the then current King of Belgium. They respectively name the king Jean, John, Jan and Brian. So, you can be reasonably sure that the King of Belgium was named John (or very similar), AND you can be reasonably sure that the Danish author should not be trusted. 2) An author writes about a volcanic eruption. This could be verified either by a) seeing that other authors wrote about a strange black cloud that rained down ash, or you could verify it by finding physical evidence, such as a layer of volcanic sediment at the appropriate depth. 3) The OT mentions something about a global flood that covered the Earth in water for 40 days. There are quite a few records from Ancient China from around that era that mention neither a flood lasting over a month, nor a record of their previous records being mysteriously washed away. 4) There is evidence of separate languages before OT times. Thus the story of the Tower of Babel cannot be true.
Now, once you've shown that a book was intended to be factual as was possible, it's reasonable to (tentatively) assume that all that is contained in the book was factual. By this, I mean that if a book lists the kings of England accurately, to our knowledge, but lists pi = 3.2, then it's still factual, to the best of its abilities at the time.
Of course, that's assuming that they work needs to be taken as fact. Personal journals, fictional stories, and intellectual works, for example, don't need to have their historicity verified, at least not to the same extent.
Half the country doesn't pay income taxes because they can't afford to pay income taxes on top of the taxes they can't avoid, such as sales tax. This half of the country owns about 2% of the wealth in the country.
One percent of the country, on the other hand, owns 43% of the wealth.
Now, it should be obvious that a flat tax is a bad idea, and a progressive tax is preferable. So you would expect the bottom half of the country to pay less than 2% of the taxes and the top 1% to pay at least 43% of the taxes.
In the bottom 50%, this coincides with reality. The top 1%, though, only account for 37% of the income taxes.
This isn't even a flat tax! This is a regressive tax, meaning that the heaviest burden is placed on the middle class.
In addition, while the Constitution does not protect stealing good off trucks (and why the hell would it?), it does both protect trucks and taking things off of them.
To be fair, the $16 Muffins headline turned out to be that the DoJ spent $16 per person on food, drink and facilities, but the hotel didn't feel like itemizing.
Latest entertainment industry power grab... Slashdot: "Down with the stupid evil corrupt entertainment industry!! Dirty lying evil bastards!!"... They're making a "Dr. Who" feature film... Slashdot: "Down with the stupid evil corrupt entertainment industry!! Dirty lying evil bastards!!"...
In the firesale, I ordered about a half dozen Touchpads from various websites, and the only one that ended up coming through was from HP Small/Medium Business.
I ordered on August 21st, and I received September 21st.
One thing that people tend to not realize is that Age of Consent is when you can have sex with someone without being charged with statutory rape, not when it is legal to have sex with the person.
Endangering the welfare of a child still is one crime you could be convicted of.
Yes, we already know that it's not just "round rectangles." Even Gumph.
What he said was "[...] the patent-a-rectangle nature [...]," emphasis mine.
Even taken all together, Apple's design patent could be used to take practically all smartphones off the market, and certain aspects have been common in computers and phones for over a decade. The "patent-a-rectangle" part is just highlighting one obviously silly piece of a silly patent.
How has this been modded insightful? Is it just the four-digit ID?
The concept of trickle-down economics simply has no analogue in this context. It is simply idiotic to compare bandwidth to money.
It's more accurate to compare bandwidth to jalapenos. The vast majority of people buy them rarely, while a very few buy them often, where the number that each person buys is determined by how much they use. Unlike money, the vast majority of people will not increase the number of jalapenos they use even if they are given a limitless supply. Also, even though trickle-down economics doesn't appear to work in the real world, at least the money does reenter the market once initially used. The same cannot be said for jalapenos, or for bandwidth.
In this instance, the very few people who eat jalapenos often are annoyed when they are limited as to the number they can buy because (a) they see that a large number of the peppers are rotting on the shelf on the off-chance that one of the majority may buy one, or because (b) there has been a steady increase in demand for jalapenos, and the store has done nothing to get more in stock.
Colonel Sandurz and Dark Helmet download and install Firefox.
Dark Helmet: What the hell am I looking at? When did this version of Firefox get released? Colonel Sandurz: Now. You're looking at now, sir. The version you have now, is happening now. Dark Helmet: What happened to the last version? Colonel Sandurz: We passed it. Dark Helmet: When? Colonel Sandurz: Just now. We're at now now. Dark Helmet: Go back to then. Colonel Sandurz: When? Dark Helmet: Now. Colonel Sandurz: Now? Dark Helmet: Now. Colonel Sandurz: I can't. Dark Helmet: Why? Colonel Sandurz: They've stopped supporting it. Dark Helmet: When? Colonel Sandurz: Just now. Dark Helmet: When will then be now? Colonel Sandurz: Soon. Dark Helmet: How soon?
He isn't saying that people are removing GPS and other OnStar components illegally; rather, he's saying that they're removing the components because they wish to do illegal things.
For example, one might wish "part ways" with his "former colleague" by "taking a trip" to the Pine Barrens, for which he may wish some privacy.
Slashdot Mirror
While a large portion of our historical knowledge comes from texts, that doesn't automatically imply that ancient texts should all be taken at face value.
So, say you run across an ancient tome. How can you determine whether its claims are true?
The two places to look in order to verify its veracity would be other texts written by independent authors in the same era and physical evidence. So, for a couple (contrived) examples:
1) Authors in France, England, Germany and Denmark all mention the then current King of Belgium. They respectively name the king Jean, John, Jan and Brian. So, you can be reasonably sure that the King of Belgium was named John (or very similar), AND you can be reasonably sure that the Danish author should not be trusted.
2) An author writes about a volcanic eruption. This could be verified either by a) seeing that other authors wrote about a strange black cloud that rained down ash, or you could verify it by finding physical evidence, such as a layer of volcanic sediment at the appropriate depth.
3) The OT mentions something about a global flood that covered the Earth in water for 40 days. There are quite a few records from Ancient China from around that era that mention neither a flood lasting over a month, nor a record of their previous records being mysteriously washed away.
4) There is evidence of separate languages before OT times. Thus the story of the Tower of Babel cannot be true.
Now, once you've shown that a book was intended to be factual as was possible, it's reasonable to (tentatively) assume that all that is contained in the book was factual. By this, I mean that if a book lists the kings of England accurately, to our knowledge, but lists pi = 3.2, then it's still factual, to the best of its abilities at the time.
Of course, that's assuming that they work needs to be taken as fact. Personal journals, fictional stories, and intellectual works, for example, don't need to have their historicity verified, at least not to the same extent.
More accurately, this is like hassling a firework manufacturer under the guise of stopping gun violence.
Actually, there is precedent in case law that pepper-spraying nonviolent protesters is assault.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1332957.html
Half the country doesn't pay income taxes because they can't afford to pay income taxes on top of the taxes they can't avoid, such as sales tax. This half of the country owns about 2% of the wealth in the country.
One percent of the country, on the other hand, owns 43% of the wealth.
Now, it should be obvious that a flat tax is a bad idea, and a progressive tax is preferable. So you would expect the bottom half of the country to pay less than 2% of the taxes and the top 1% to pay at least 43% of the taxes.
In the bottom 50%, this coincides with reality. The top 1%, though, only account for 37% of the income taxes.
This isn't even a flat tax! This is a regressive tax, meaning that the heaviest burden is placed on the middle class.
The American people are the enemy.
Did you not realize this?
The military justice code can't possibly be that fucked up.... can it?
You have heard about the Guantanimo Bay prison and the PATRIOT Act, right?
In addition, while the Constitution does not protect stealing good off trucks (and why the hell would it?), it does both protect trucks and taking things off of them.
To be fair, the $16 Muffins headline turned out to be that the DoJ spent $16 per person on food, drink and facilities, but the hotel didn't feel like itemizing.
Latest entertainment industry power grab ... ... ... ...
Slashdot: "Down with the stupid evil corrupt entertainment industry!! Dirty lying evil bastards!!"
They're making a "Dr. Who" feature film
Slashdot: "Down with the stupid evil corrupt entertainment industry!! Dirty lying evil bastards!!"
FTFY
Porn companies have been doing this for years.
Actually, most Creationists I've argued against have no issue whatsoever with evolution occurring after the Flood.
They call this "micro-evolution."
In the firesale, I ordered about a half dozen Touchpads from various websites, and the only one that ended up coming through was from HP Small/Medium Business.
I ordered on August 21st, and I received September 21st.
One thing that people tend to not realize is that Age of Consent is when you can have sex with someone without being charged with statutory rape, not when it is legal to have sex with the person.
Endangering the welfare of a child still is one crime you could be convicted of.
I always knew that the Universe was a sinister place.
Yes, we already know that it's not just "round rectangles." Even Gumph.
What he said was "[...] the patent-a-rectangle nature [...]," emphasis mine.
Even taken all together, Apple's design patent could be used to take practically all smartphones off the market, and certain aspects have been common in computers and phones for over a decade. The "patent-a-rectangle" part is just highlighting one obviously silly piece of a silly patent.
"it still has a top speed of 125 mph"
That's purely theoretical, though, since I've never seen one go over 88.
The first 20 or so minutes of Dark Passage are shot from the first person perspective of a man who has escaped from prison.
After that, the man is shown in bandages, and later on with the bandages removed.
He is played by Bogart.
Apparently you haven't seen Dark Passage.
If only we could all be Humphrey Bogart after surgery.
There is one very important difference, though:
Boot camp ends.
No, I understood what GP was saying.
I also understood that it was a terrible metaphor that should never have been moded insightful.
How has this been modded insightful? Is it just the four-digit ID?
The concept of trickle-down economics simply has no analogue in this context. It is simply idiotic to compare bandwidth to money.
It's more accurate to compare bandwidth to jalapenos. The vast majority of people buy them rarely, while a very few buy them often, where the number that each person buys is determined by how much they use. Unlike money, the vast majority of people will not increase the number of jalapenos they use even if they are given a limitless supply. Also, even though trickle-down economics doesn't appear to work in the real world, at least the money does reenter the market once initially used. The same cannot be said for jalapenos, or for bandwidth.
In this instance, the very few people who eat jalapenos often are annoyed when they are limited as to the number they can buy because (a) they see that a large number of the peppers are rotting on the shelf on the off-chance that one of the majority may buy one, or because (b) there has been a steady increase in demand for jalapenos, and the store has done nothing to get more in stock.
But I'm fairly certain that school boards will expect all teachers to find uses for it.
Colonel Sandurz and Dark Helmet download and install Firefox.
Dark Helmet: What the hell am I looking at? When did this version of Firefox get released?
Colonel Sandurz: Now. You're looking at now, sir. The version you have now, is happening now.
Dark Helmet: What happened to the last version?
Colonel Sandurz: We passed it.
Dark Helmet: When?
Colonel Sandurz: Just now. We're at now now.
Dark Helmet: Go back to then.
Colonel Sandurz: When?
Dark Helmet: Now.
Colonel Sandurz: Now?
Dark Helmet: Now.
Colonel Sandurz: I can't.
Dark Helmet: Why?
Colonel Sandurz: They've stopped supporting it.
Dark Helmet: When?
Colonel Sandurz: Just now.
Dark Helmet: When will then be now?
Colonel Sandurz: Soon.
Dark Helmet: How soon?
You're misunderstanding GP.
He isn't saying that people are removing GPS and other OnStar components illegally; rather, he's saying that they're removing the components because they wish to do illegal things.
For example, one might wish "part ways" with his "former colleague" by "taking a trip" to the Pine Barrens, for which he may wish some privacy.