You are mistaken. When the Romans dispersed the Jews from what was then known in Latin as Syria Judea, they renamed their newly-annexed province Syria Palestina.
The term, IIRC, is a reference to the ancient Philistine people, and the region had been described by the name in a few Greek sources. The Romans deliberately chose a name with no direct connection to the Jews to reflect their conquest of the same.
When the British acquired the territory from the Ottomans after WWI, they called it by the long-standing Latin name.
Well, "country" can be used to refer to either the land or the people inhabiting it. "Nation" is derived from the Latin nasci, so can certainly only refer to the people. "Country" comes from contrata meaning "opposite", and although this usage usually refers to land, IIRC, a certain Anglo-Saxon word also related to birth has a similar etymology.:)
"Country" and "sovereign state" are not synonomous. England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland are clearly distinct countries, despite none having complete political sovereignty. The term can be used to describe any culturally distinct population inhabiting a defined geographical space.
Even if you do explicitly define "country" by status of political sovereignty, where specifically do you make the distinction between a population that is a country and one that is not? For example, in the very case being discussed, England and Scotland were historically autonomous of one another in all respects until 1603, when they first had a common monarch. But their parliaments didn't merge until 1707 (and now seem to be on the path to un-merging), and their judicial systems have always been completely separate and independent. At what point did England and Scotland respectively stop being "countries" and the entirely politically-defined "United Kingdom" start being one?
FYI, Jefferson had nothing to do with the creation of the constitution. He was in France during the constitutional convention, and when he returned, did not fully support the constitution until the Bill of Rights was adopted.
Come on... People have killed more in the name of religion, but that doesn't make the concept of religion a bad thing
And there's the key difference. Murderous people have, in the past, used appeals to religion as an excuse for their violence. But religious ideology itself has rarely been directly responsible for anyone's death.
But with communism - which is applied as a comprehensive social system rather than being an ideology subscribed to by individuals - the flaws in the doctrine do indeed directly cause needless deaths, independently of any ill will or belligerence on the part of its advocates.
Although the Soviet regime was brutal and many innocent people died in its gulags, the vast majority of those who perished under Soviet communism were killed by the famines which were a direct result of the collectivisation of Russian agriculture according to prevailing communist theory.
As you stated, the opposite of Democracy is Totalitarianism.
Not at all. Democracies can be totalitarian in character as well. Both incorporate the idea that the state and society are one in the same.
I see democracy as actually being more compatible with communism than capitalism, as a political system dominated by majority-rule would naturally be more inclined to pursue collectivist ideals than to respect the rights of individuals.
The real misnomer here is calling China's current economic condition "capitalism" when in reality, it's heavily state-influenced mercantilism. Most of the economic development in China is taking place under the auspices of large, centralised concerns with close relationships with the government, not as the result of the network effects of a free society of individuals and voluntary communities pursuing their own aims. I doubt the average Chinese individual is free enough and secure enough in his property rights to be able to successfully operate a small, private business, and is likely still just as dependent on the state and other effectively government-controlled centralised authorities as he was during the period of overt communism.
Also, if you're right, exactly where is the huge spike in atmospheric carbon coming from, anyway? See http://www.climate.unibe.ch/clim_recon/co2.html. See that orange spike on the right? That look natural to you?
Note that three out of the four sampling locations on that graph are in Antarctica, while the fourth location - the orange spike, for which only measurements from the present are shown - is Mauna Loa, an active volcano. I'm not suprised that there's more CO2 to be found at an active volcano than in ice sheets in Antarctica.
Also note that the large spike shown at 0 years BP (that is, at the present) indicates samples taken at different locations than the samples representing the distant past.
The present data was also collected via direct measurment, whereas the data for the past is obtained via a reconstruction procedure. In other words, the data was collected using two different methods, and it may not be a coincidence that the dramatic change in the graph is at the precise point at which sampling methods change.
Finally, if the spike shown at the present time can only be explained by industrial activity, as you seem to imply, what accounts for the equally significant spike rising between 20,000 and 10,000 years ago, all at the same location?
I can't wait! I've been wanting to replace "consumer protection" and "justice" with consumer protection and justice, respectively, for a long time now! And you can't do that as long as unaccountable politicians are in control of things.
Although I have to disagree with you about the school issue. Children will finally be able to attend school once the "schools" are closed.
The judicial branch is too much about inserting the judges personal ideas & thoughts into the laws they are asked to rule on. They're real job is just to interpret the law as it was intended by the legislature (even if it's stupid) and rule accordingly.
No, it isn't, and it never has been. It's always been the courts' responsibility to determine the constitutionality of statutes. Look at it this way: the constitution is a superior source of law relative to legislation. So the courts are interpreting and applying the constitution to inferior statutes.
The courts never "legislate" - they don't create new positive law from whole cloth and establish an enforcement apparatus to apply their decisions to the whole of society. Only legislatures do that (and personally, I think legislatures shouldn't have this power either), but it's the courts' job to reign them in when they go too far.
Not to mention committing essentially theft, and several other illegal actions (IIRC, it's illegal to sell someone else's property - regards the initial SCP QDOS).
???
Microsoft bought QDOS from SCP before they began selling it under their own name.
True enough. But they don't have the right to, say, eat at someone else's restaurant. But the left thinks that smokers shouldn't have the right to open private businesses that cater to to other smokers, and that majority preference should overrule individual rights, even on private property. Here, it's the left that's violating people's rights.
people have a right to not be shot
Also true. And they have the right not to be stabbed, beaten, folded, bent, spindled or mutilated, too. So how do you justify depriving people of the tools they need to assert their right of self-defance against those who would do any of the above? It seems that again, it's the left that's violating people's rights.
people have a right for their lives not to be shaped for the benefit of some private corporation
Yet again, you're right. Well, mostly. It's the public corporations, not the private ones, that seem to have the most undue power. But the left's solution to a few powerful interest posessing an overbearing influence over society is to put absolutely everying directly into the control of a single, more-powerful interest. Sort of like jumping off a bridge to avoid dying of disease. Again, the left violates people's rights, even if, perhaps, they intend not to.
On balance, I'd say that neither the left nor the right have much respect for people's self-determination and have too little self-control to tolerate the liberty of those who disagree with them.
The original SimCity came with a code sheet with black ink on dark brown paper. It was easy enough to read, but if you tried to photocopy it, the whole page would come out black.
I had a monochrome hand scanner that had a red light filter. The red was enough to make the brown paper come out white, so I was able scan the whole page and print it out on a laser printer. It worked great with hint books and other copy-protection that required red light filters to see the text as well.
Most copy protection was like that back in the 80s and early 90s, and despite the rampant piracy, all the game companies succeeded phenomenally. Seems like they're trying to shoot themselves in the feet now.
The only arcade machine was Astro Chicken in the Monolith Burger. There was no way to play SQ1 in it. Which makes sense, considering Sierra was still selling SQ1 and SQ2 when SQ3 came out.
SQ4 actually had a full arcade in it, but, IIRC, the only playable game was Ms. Astro Chicken. (Although the bargain bin in the software shop at the Galaxy Galleria had lots of funny parody game boxes.)
Well, the technologically-backward level of the steel mills is likely directly influenced by the subsidies. Why bother upgrading your infrastructure to remain competetive when you're being shielded from the real pressures of the market by handouts?
It seems to me that in the century since public education became essentially universal in the US, governments, businesses, and other institutions have gained much more power over the individual than they ever had before.
In fact government schooling was in some places used as a means to keep the population in line with the state's plans.
Slashdot Mirror
You are mistaken. When the Romans dispersed the Jews from what was then known in Latin as Syria Judea, they renamed their newly-annexed province Syria Palestina.
The term, IIRC, is a reference to the ancient Philistine people, and the region had been described by the name in a few Greek sources. The Romans deliberately chose a name with no direct connection to the Jews to reflect their conquest of the same.
When the British acquired the territory from the Ottomans after WWI, they called it by the long-standing Latin name.
That's because "capitalists" are actually mercantilists, not capitalists.
Those blue dotted lines in the sea are ferry routes.
Well, "country" can be used to refer to either the land or the people inhabiting it. "Nation" is derived from the Latin nasci, so can certainly only refer to the people. "Country" comes from contrata meaning "opposite", and although this usage usually refers to land, IIRC, a certain Anglo-Saxon word also related to birth has a similar etymology. :)
"Country" and "sovereign state" are not synonomous. England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland are clearly distinct countries, despite none having complete political sovereignty. The term can be used to describe any culturally distinct population inhabiting a defined geographical space.
Even if you do explicitly define "country" by status of political sovereignty, where specifically do you make the distinction between a population that is a country and one that is not? For example, in the very case being discussed, England and Scotland were historically autonomous of one another in all respects until 1603, when they first had a common monarch. But their parliaments didn't merge until 1707 (and now seem to be on the path to un-merging), and their judicial systems have always been completely separate and independent. At what point did England and Scotland respectively stop being "countries" and the entirely politically-defined "United Kingdom" start being one?
FYI, you were right in the original post. 7-11 was originally Southland Ice Co.
How can they be underfunded but not poorly run?
They sell a service. If they are not earning enough revenue to cover their costs, then they are doing something wrong, QED...
FYI, Jefferson had nothing to do with the creation of the constitution. He was in France during the constitutional convention, and when he returned, did not fully support the constitution until the Bill of Rights was adopted.
Aha! "Solo Han"! He IS a Chinese cop!
But with communism - which is applied as a comprehensive social system rather than being an ideology subscribed to by individuals - the flaws in the doctrine do indeed directly cause needless deaths, independently of any ill will or belligerence on the part of its advocates.
Although the Soviet regime was brutal and many innocent people died in its gulags, the vast majority of those who perished under Soviet communism were killed by the famines which were a direct result of the collectivisation of Russian agriculture according to prevailing communist theory.
I see democracy as actually being more compatible with communism than capitalism, as a political system dominated by majority-rule would naturally be more inclined to pursue collectivist ideals than to respect the rights of individuals.
The real misnomer here is calling China's current economic condition "capitalism" when in reality, it's heavily state-influenced mercantilism. Most of the economic development in China is taking place under the auspices of large, centralised concerns with close relationships with the government, not as the result of the network effects of a free society of individuals and voluntary communities pursuing their own aims. I doubt the average Chinese individual is free enough and secure enough in his property rights to be able to successfully operate a small, private business, and is likely still just as dependent on the state and other effectively government-controlled centralised authorities as he was during the period of overt communism.
Also note that the large spike shown at 0 years BP (that is, at the present) indicates samples taken at different locations than the samples representing the distant past.
The present data was also collected via direct measurment, whereas the data for the past is obtained via a reconstruction procedure. In other words, the data was collected using two different methods, and it may not be a coincidence that the dramatic change in the graph is at the precise point at which sampling methods change.
Finally, if the spike shown at the present time can only be explained by industrial activity, as you seem to imply, what accounts for the equally significant spike rising between 20,000 and 10,000 years ago, all at the same location?
I can't wait! I've been wanting to replace "consumer protection" and "justice" with consumer protection and justice, respectively, for a long time now! And you can't do that as long as unaccountable politicians are in control of things.
Although I have to disagree with you about the school issue. Children will finally be able to attend school once the "schools" are closed.
The courts never "legislate" - they don't create new positive law from whole cloth and establish an enforcement apparatus to apply their decisions to the whole of society. Only legislatures do that (and personally, I think legislatures shouldn't have this power either), but it's the courts' job to reign them in when they go too far.
You're right.
100 copies of the same 500k image file constitutes 48.83 megs of data.
Er... Avant is just a wrapper for IE.
Microsoft bought QDOS from SCP before they began selling it under their own name.
On balance, I'd say that neither the left nor the right have much respect for people's self-determination and have too little self-control to tolerate the liberty of those who disagree with them.
Quick nitpick: Farscape is actually made in Australia.
The original SimCity came with a code sheet with black ink on dark brown paper. It was easy enough to read, but if you tried to photocopy it, the whole page would come out black.
I had a monochrome hand scanner that had a red light filter. The red was enough to make the brown paper come out white, so I was able scan the whole page and print it out on a laser printer. It worked great with hint books and other copy-protection that required red light filters to see the text as well.
Most copy protection was like that back in the 80s and early 90s, and despite the rampant piracy, all the game companies succeeded phenomenally. Seems like they're trying to shoot themselves in the feet now.
What?
The only arcade machine was Astro Chicken in the Monolith Burger. There was no way to play SQ1 in it. Which makes sense, considering Sierra was still selling SQ1 and SQ2 when SQ3 came out.
SQ4 actually had a full arcade in it, but, IIRC, the only playable game was Ms. Astro Chicken. (Although the bargain bin in the software shop at the Galaxy Galleria had lots of funny parody game boxes.)
Because we all now how much better off everyone is when they can only consume the products they've made with their own hands.
Well, the technologically-backward level of the steel mills is likely directly influenced by the subsidies. Why bother upgrading your infrastructure to remain competetive when you're being shielded from the real pressures of the market by handouts?
It seems to me that in the century since public education became essentially universal in the US, governments, businesses, and other institutions have gained much more power over the individual than they ever had before.
In fact government schooling was in some places used as a means to keep the population in line with the state's plans.