But then again the prof is allowed to give you an F legally for any reason he chooses.
What if the professor required sexual favors for a passing grade? I mean, it would obviously be grounds for dismal, but don't you think that's actionable? Isn't this in fact extortion?
Suppose I bought some porn video and there was a code that my kids found that let them play a game where they beat people and ran them over for fun. Would I have case?
Online gambling from other countries is outlawed in the USA because the mechanisms to ensure fairness can not be physically confirmed by government representatives.
There is no way the US government gives a shit about this issue. I think it's pretty naive to think so.
Does anyone move into a room, office, flat and not think "that chair would look better there, we should have that colour for the walls and how about a pot plant?"?
Yes.
In the U.S., we refer to these people as "straight".
Not as clear cut as you might imagine. "The People" is a phrase commonly used to refer to the collective will of the community. For an example, see most court cases prosecuted by the state, where the plaintiff is always "The People".
It's quite possible that it was the intent of the founding fathers to place gun ownership in the hands of state governments.
It's not possible unless you think the founders were fools. The Bill of Rights is written in English. Try to parse the 10th amendment with your tortured understanding of the word people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The rule is technically the STATES that have freedom of arms.
bullshit.
[i]A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, [b]the right of the People[/b] to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.[/i]
According to a Wall St. Journal article top executives at most companies fail to recognize the value of IT, having a tendency to think of information technology as a basic utility, like plumbing or telephone service.
I think this comment shows a failure to recognize the value of basic utilities.
Exactly. A large number of people making bad decisions often affect more than just themselves. Just take a look at the sub prime scandal, those bad loans may just pull the entire nation into a recession. You may get laid off because some idiots signed mortgages they were never able to afford. Should the government have taken action, restricting their freedoms to prevent them from screwing you over? Its a tough question.
I don't think the problem is a lack of government involvement. Isn't the whole point of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to allow for more risk in loans than individual lenders could tolerate?
Look at the way tax policy works. Interest payments are tax deductible. Investing in the stock market in a 401(k) is tax deferred. Supposing you want to influence people to borrow a lot of money, wouldn't that be a good way to do it?
The thing that disappoints me the most is the apathy of voters toward campaign contributions. It should be political death to fund a campaign with dubious sources. There shouldn't have to be laws like McCain-Feingold.
People should think it's bad for a candidate to owe favors and not vote for him. The media should follow this stuff carefully instead of endlessly speculating on who will win.
I'm looking for a resource for generic setting information. When the characters show up at $town, I'd like to have a map of it and some NPCs living there. They aren't really part of our story, but I don't want them to be completely flat, either. Any suggestions?
I'm not sure why you're concentrating on the time between releases. 3.5 has been out a few years, and nobody is forcing anyone to change. There's a plethora of material out for 3.5, so if you don't want to change your rules... don't.
That's certainly true to an extent; I just started a campaign with the basic & expert box sets.
The problem is the network effect. It's the same way people feel compelled to upgrade to a new version of MS Word. It's not because they care about the new features; it's because they want to be compatible with everybody else's documents. So while it generates short-term revenue for the company, the upgrades don't really create any new value for the customers.
I agree that house rules generally make Monopoly longer and less fun. I can't, however, imagine any way that I could play it that would make it what I would call a role-playing game.
Things like terror are far worse. Imagine six 9-11's on our [critical] infrastructure.
The 9-11 attacks were horrible for the people actually involved, but they're really, really small compared to a nuke going off in a city. Terrorism is bad, but it's not a threat to our nation's survival.
It has been shown time and again that paying for somebody's college education pays for itself many times over in higher tax revenue after the person graduates. To me, that's probably the best investment we can make since it more than pays for itself.
I'm not arguing against the value of education. The alternative to putting these funds through the Department of Education isn't lighting the money on fire and dancing around it. The question is, how does funding the Department of Education, which then funds the states and people, compare with the states collecting taxes or the people saving their own money for education?
I see federal money causing us to do stupid things in primary education all the time. It's a huge deal for the schools to go half days so that they can capture all the federal money. I think it's obvious that this is a bad use of resources, since it involves all the overhead in time and energy but half the teaching time.
The Department of Education uses 2% of the federal budget. Their total budget is less than $60 billion dollars. Most of the money goes right back to the taxpayers in the form of Pell Grants ($13 billion) and various grants to the states ($24 billion).
Right. But to use business jargon, where's their added value? They didn't [i]generate[/i] that money, they just acquired it through taxation. Does the money passing through the hands of the federal government increase or decrease the value of that money to the states' education programs?
Slashdot Mirror
I think people are willing to pay a premium for extended battery life. If I can use my device more, it has more utility.
What if the professor required sexual favors for a passing grade? I mean, it would obviously be grounds for dismal, but don't you think that's actionable? Isn't this in fact extortion?
Suppose I bought some porn video and there was a code that my kids found that let them play a game where they beat people and ran them over for fun. Would I have case?
Who exactly is supposed to care about this?
This is like a car that you can whip to make it go faster.
There is no way the US government gives a shit about this issue. I think it's pretty naive to think so.
Yes.
In the U.S., we refer to these people as "straight".
It's not possible unless you think the founders were fools. The Bill of Rights is written in English. Try to parse the 10th amendment with your tortured understanding of the word people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
bullshit.
[i]A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, [b]the right of the People[/b] to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.[/i]
I think this comment shows a failure to recognize the value of basic utilities.
I think this xkcd applies.
I don't think the problem is a lack of government involvement. Isn't the whole point of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to allow for more risk in loans than individual lenders could tolerate?
Look at the way tax policy works. Interest payments are tax deductible. Investing in the stock market in a 401(k) is tax deferred. Supposing you want to influence people to borrow a lot of money, wouldn't that be a good way to do it?
The thing that disappoints me the most is the apathy of voters toward campaign contributions. It should be political death to fund a campaign with dubious sources. There shouldn't have to be laws like McCain-Feingold.
People should think it's bad for a candidate to owe favors and not vote for him. The media should follow this stuff carefully instead of endlessly speculating on who will win.
It's sad.
Pardon me as I hijack this story a bit.
I'm looking for a resource for generic setting information. When the characters show up at $town, I'd like to have a map of it and some NPCs living there. They aren't really part of our story, but I don't want them to be completely flat, either. Any suggestions?
That's certainly true to an extent; I just started a campaign with the basic & expert box sets.
The problem is the network effect. It's the same way people feel compelled to upgrade to a new version of MS Word. It's not because they care about the new features; it's because they want to be compatible with everybody else's documents. So while it generates short-term revenue for the company, the upgrades don't really create any new value for the customers.
I wonder what percentage of people in China believe that.
Cool. Thanks.
I don't believe that. An ability to consume things isn't a unique national merit of the US.
I agree that house rules generally make Monopoly longer and less fun. I can't, however, imagine any way that I could play it that would make it what I would call a role-playing game.
The 9-11 attacks were horrible for the people actually involved, but they're really, really small compared to a nuke going off in a city. Terrorism is bad, but it's not a threat to our nation's survival.
Settlers isn't significantly (if any) more complex than Monopoly, imho.
Yeah, but what if it were a car?
I'm not arguing against the value of education. The alternative to putting these funds through the Department of Education isn't lighting the money on fire and dancing around it. The question is, how does funding the Department of Education, which then funds the states and people, compare with the states collecting taxes or the people saving their own money for education?
I see federal money causing us to do stupid things in primary education all the time. It's a huge deal for the schools to go half days so that they can capture all the federal money. I think it's obvious that this is a bad use of resources, since it involves all the overhead in time and energy but half the teaching time.
Damn it. generate. BBcode has rotted my brain.
Right. But to use business jargon, where's their added value? They didn't [i]generate[/i] that money, they just acquired it through taxation. Does the money passing through the hands of the federal government increase or decrease the value of that money to the states' education programs?
That's a load of crap.
Maine:
Romney 2,362 52% 18 Winner
McCain 958 21% 0
Paul 851 19% 0
Huckabee 268 6% 0
Undecided 94 2% 0
Thompson 4 0% 0
Giuliani 2 0% 0
Hunter 0 0% 0
http://abcnews.go.com/politics/elections/state?state=ME&ref=ipb
How about Nevada?
Romney 22,649 51% 17 Winner
Paul 6,087 14% 4
McCain 5,651 13% 4
Huckabee 3,616 8% 3
Thompson 3,521 8% 2
Giuliani 1,910 4% 1
Hunter 890 2% 0