How does a person get a car loan for longer than the amount of time they can guarantee even being in the country?
Speaking from experience: you get a short-term car loan (with a really high interest rate, since you have no credit-history), buy a cheap car, and pay it off after a few months.
How do you get a 20-year mortgage if your visa is only good for 5?
Easy: despite all that crap they give you about your credit-score, the bank only cares if your home is worth enough to cover the balance on the mortgage. They'll get their money some way: you become a permanent resident and pay off the mortgage in 20 years as planned, you sell the house when your visa expires and pay off the remaining balance then, and if you simply leave the country and stop paying, they'll sell your house and take the proceeds. The risk to the bank is really very small.
Have you ever considered that maybe those foreign workers are simply *better*? If words like "carrers", "inherient" and "priviledge" appear in a resume, it will be dumped in the trash. If at the end of the day all of the American-written resumes end up in the trash, the employer will conclude that there are no qualified American workers, and will start looking elsewhere.
Our constitution gives Congress the right to extend monopolies to artists, authors and inventors, for limited periods, to serve the public interest.
However, that deal does not necessarily have to be with every individual person. The fact that there is such a thing as copyright (or patents) is what stimulates creation, and thereby serves the public interest. Whether or not that creation eventually ends up in the public domain is irrelevant to this.
It's Philips, not Phillips. Philips is the Dutch electronics giant, while Phillips is only known for having a screwdriver named after them. For some reason Americans can never seem to get this right.
25000 years? This is simply not possible, as more than half of the United States population well knows: the Earth was created about 7000 years ago. Anyone claiming differently will surely go to hell.
Did you read his symptoms? They are sufficiently extreme and frequent to merit concern *and* action.
As a devil's advocate, I would say that they are "sufficiently extreme" because they were described by Patrick himself, not an objective third party. You can't tell from that email if it was written by a rational person who is severely ill, or by a hypochondriac who is only moderately ill. Only tests and a doctor can make that determination, and he is going to find neither on slashdot.
The reason for the original design was: the president candidates cold not visit every town all over america to present themselves
That might be the reason for the electoral system itself, but the reason for the discrepancy between population and number of electors (small states have a larger number of electors per capity than big states) was to persuade small states to join the union by giving them a relatively bigger say in it.
You're overlooking that without the electoral college, there would be no such thing as "winning a state". You'd win a certain number of votes. And while you would win more votes in some areas than in others, if you look at the by-county results of this last election, you'll notice that states as a whole are far from uniform in who they vote for.
Without the electoral college, candidates would probably campaign only in the most populous areas, foregoing the rural areas. *With* the electoral college, they mostly campaign in so-called 'swing states', while ignoring the "sure thing" states. What's the difference, really?
Google's explanation does not explain why you can search and get result for pictures of events that happened *after* Abu Ghraib (the 2004 Republican and Democratic National Conventions, for example), nor does it explain why people were able to find Abu Ghraib pictures using Google Images previously.
How can you call the torture, rape and killing of prisoners, the detention of children, all under US supervision, a "non-story"? More people die of car-accidents each year then died in the twin towers attacks on 9/11. Shall we start calling that a "non story" too?
Google's "reasonable explanation" does not explain why these pictures used to be available through Google Images, nor why pictures of an event such as the republican national convention, which happened long after Abu Ghraib, can be easily found using Google Images.
The date on this report says august 2004, but on page 31 it says "The largest commercially available computers can store 40 gigabytes on a single hard drive."
Given his threatening posture, and his unwillingness to provide UN inspectors access to verify the lack of WMD
You seem to have forgotten that before the war, inspectors had full access (they were then told by the US to leave, because the US was going to start bombing), and that Iraq had just submitted thousands upon thousands of pages of documentation (which the US did not bother reading fully, because they wanted to go to war).
We all learn. We're all smarter as a result
I honestly don't see that being true for this administration. They scoff at the "reality based community".
they've seen what the consequences can be
And the US has been reminded what the cost of war is. I don't think this administration could get the American public to buy into another war. And North Korea and Iran no doubt know this.
There is ample proof that the Bush administration was told that the yellowcake and aluminum tube stories were bogus. There is ample proof that they were told that medicare would cost a whole lot more than they wanted to admit. That being said, if the options are that they are either lying, or so incompetent that they get these things so terribly wrong, why reelect them? Does fear of gays really trump sound economic policy and catching Osama bin Laden?
But that's just it! They *have* been caught, time after time, and the public doesn't seem to care. Lies about the Iraq-Al Qaeda connection (Google the phrase "pretty well confirmed"), lies about yellowcake from Niger, the aluminum tubes, lies about how well the economy was doing, lies about the cost of the Iraq war, the cost of medicare reform, about what the Patriot Act would be used for. And nobody seemed to care. If there's anything the Bush administration has learned over the last 4 years, it's that they can get away with lying.
Yes, he was torturing his own people. So do other countries. In fact, the US has secretly sent people to other countries in order to be tortured (something they want to legalize now, so they won't have to do it secretly anymore). Which terrorists did Saddam support? Are you talking about Al Qaeda? The 9/11 Committee has concluded that he did not. Or did you mean Al Zarqawi, who had a camp in an area not controlled by Saddam, a camp which the US could have bombed but didn't. The US let Zarqawi get away, and they let bin Laden get away, because they needed both in order to make a case for the war. Saddam had WMD at some point, but when he presented thousands upon thousands pages of documents that detailed where they went, the US rushed to war before they were even finished reading the documents. In the end, it turned out that Saddam had no WMD left, and was no threat to the US. Over one hundred thousand Iraqis died because of that "mistake". Oops...
I'm curious why you think that Kerry would be more "dangerous" than Bush. Don't you think that Bush has made the world more dangerous by creating a breeding and recruiting ground for terrorists in Iraq? Are you one of the 70% of Republicans who believe that Saddam had WMD or the 60-some percent who believe that Saddam was involved in 9/11, by any chance?
The Iraq war had bipartisan support because the Bush administration made damn sure that only the reports that they wanted to be seen were actually seen. They lied about Iraq's WMD, they lied about Saddam's al Qaeda connection, they lied about most everything related to this war, it's that simple. If they had simply said that Saddam is a brutal dictator and a destabilizing factor in the region, and needs to be deposed, I wouldn't be so upset. But the fact is that they LIED about their reasons for going to war, and they continue to lie about this and many other things to this very day.
Pointing this out is not unpatriotic (quite the opposite in fact), and neither is pointing this out the reason the country is do divided. The country is divided because Bush lied, and only half the country realizes it.
I also remember that the protestors at the Dem convention where put in cages, while the protestors in New York were allowed to do whatever they pleased
Another mis-informed Republican you are. Protesters in New York were led into a street which was then blocked off by police on both ends, after which the police started arresting people and shipping them off to a Guantanamo-like detention facility. In all, at least 1800 protesters were arrested.
I don't think Republicans understand Democrats and vice versa
The real kicker is that Republicans don't understand Republicans. A majority of Republicans misunderstand a large number of Bush's positions (they mistakenly think he supports Kyoto, the International Criminal Court and the treaty banning landmines, for example). A majority of Republicans also think that Iraq had WMD, that Saddam was supporting Al Qaeda, etc. Democrats are much more knowledgable about these things.
If the rest of the world does not like what we do then take care of your problems yourself
What good will that do? You can be minding your own business, have no weapons of mass destruction, no link to 9/11, pose no threat to the US, and then the US will *still* invade you and kill over one hundred thousand civilians.
Slashdot Mirror
Speaking from experience: you get a short-term car loan (with a really high interest rate, since you have no credit-history), buy a cheap car, and pay it off after a few months.
How do you get a 20-year mortgage if your visa is only good for 5?
Easy: despite all that crap they give you about your credit-score, the bank only cares if your home is worth enough to cover the balance on the mortgage. They'll get their money some way: you become a permanent resident and pay off the mortgage in 20 years as planned, you sell the house when your visa expires and pay off the remaining balance then, and if you simply leave the country and stop paying, they'll sell your house and take the proceeds. The risk to the bank is really very small.
Have you ever considered that maybe those foreign workers are simply *better*? If words like "carrers", "inherient" and "priviledge" appear in a resume, it will be dumped in the trash. If at the end of the day all of the American-written resumes end up in the trash, the employer will conclude that there are no qualified American workers, and will start looking elsewhere.
The moon is smaller and therefore is easier/faster to stop. Give the earth enough time and it too will be locked with one side facing the sun.
It all depends on the job-market. In the current market, you better believe it matters. This isn't 1999 anymore.
However, that deal does not necessarily have to be with every individual person. The fact that there is such a thing as copyright (or patents) is what stimulates creation, and thereby serves the public interest. Whether or not that creation eventually ends up in the public domain is irrelevant to this.
'Philips' -> Electronics company
'Phillips' -> Known for a certain kind of screwdriver.
It's really not that hard...
It's Philips, not Phillips. Philips is the Dutch electronics giant, while Phillips is only known for having a screwdriver named after them. For some reason Americans can never seem to get this right.
25000 years? This is simply not possible, as more than half of the United States population well knows: the Earth was created about 7000 years ago. Anyone claiming differently will surely go to hell.
As a devil's advocate, I would say that they are "sufficiently extreme" because they were described by Patrick himself, not an objective third party. You can't tell from that email if it was written by a rational person who is severely ill, or by a hypochondriac who is only moderately ill. Only tests and a doctor can make that determination, and he is going to find neither on slashdot.
That might be the reason for the electoral system itself, but the reason for the discrepancy between population and number of electors (small states have a larger number of electors per capity than big states) was to persuade small states to join the union by giving them a relatively bigger say in it.
Without the electoral college, candidates would probably campaign only in the most populous areas, foregoing the rural areas. *With* the electoral college, they mostly campaign in so-called 'swing states', while ignoring the "sure thing" states. What's the difference, really?
Google's explanation does not explain why you can search and get result for pictures of events that happened *after* Abu Ghraib (the 2004 Republican and Democratic National Conventions, for example), nor does it explain why people were able to find Abu Ghraib pictures using Google Images previously.
How can you call the torture, rape and killing of prisoners, the detention of children, all under US supervision, a "non-story"?
More people die of car-accidents each year then died in the twin towers attacks on 9/11. Shall we start calling that a "non story" too?
Google's "reasonable explanation" does not explain why these pictures used to be available through Google Images, nor why pictures of an event such as the republican national convention, which happened long after Abu Ghraib, can be easily found using Google Images.
The date on this report says august 2004, but on page 31 it says "The largest commercially available computers can store 40 gigabytes on a single hard drive."
You seem to have forgotten that before the war, inspectors had full access (they were then told by the US to leave, because the US was going to start bombing), and that Iraq had just submitted thousands upon thousands of pages of documentation (which the US did not bother reading fully, because they wanted to go to war).
We all learn. We're all smarter as a result
I honestly don't see that being true for this administration. They scoff at the "reality based community".
they've seen what the consequences can be
And the US has been reminded what the cost of war is. I don't think this administration could get the American public to buy into another war. And North Korea and Iran no doubt know this.
There is ample proof that the Bush administration was told that the yellowcake and aluminum tube stories were bogus. There is ample proof that they were told that medicare would cost a whole lot more than they wanted to admit. That being said, if the options are that they are either lying, or so incompetent that they get these things so terribly wrong, why reelect them? Does fear of gays really trump sound economic policy and catching Osama bin Laden?
But that's just it! They *have* been caught, time after time, and the public doesn't seem to care. Lies about the Iraq-Al Qaeda connection (Google the phrase "pretty well confirmed"), lies about yellowcake from Niger, the aluminum tubes, lies about how well the economy was doing, lies about the cost of the Iraq war, the cost of medicare reform, about what the Patriot Act would be used for. And nobody seemed to care. If there's anything the Bush administration has learned over the last 4 years, it's that they can get away with lying.
Yes, he was torturing his own people. So do other countries. In fact, the US has secretly sent people to other countries in order to be tortured (something they want to legalize now, so they won't have to do it secretly anymore).
Which terrorists did Saddam support? Are you talking about Al Qaeda? The 9/11 Committee has concluded that he did not. Or did you mean Al Zarqawi, who had a camp in an area not controlled by Saddam, a camp which the US could have bombed but didn't. The US let Zarqawi get away, and they let bin Laden get away, because they needed both in order to make a case for the war.
Saddam had WMD at some point, but when he presented thousands upon thousands pages of documents that detailed where they went, the US rushed to war before they were even finished reading the documents.
In the end, it turned out that Saddam had no WMD left, and was no threat to the US. Over one hundred thousand Iraqis died because of that "mistake". Oops...
I'm curious why you think that Kerry would be more "dangerous" than Bush. Don't you think that Bush has made the world more dangerous by creating a breeding and recruiting ground for terrorists in Iraq?
Are you one of the 70% of Republicans who believe that Saddam had WMD or the 60-some percent who believe that Saddam was involved in 9/11, by any chance?
I wouldn't be so sure...
The Iraq war had bipartisan support because the Bush administration made damn sure that only the reports that they wanted to be seen were actually seen. They lied about Iraq's WMD, they lied about Saddam's al Qaeda connection, they lied about most everything related to this war, it's that simple. If they had simply said that Saddam is a brutal dictator and a destabilizing factor in the region, and needs to be deposed, I wouldn't be so upset. But the fact is that they LIED about their reasons for going to war, and they continue to lie about this and many other things to this very day.
Pointing this out is not unpatriotic (quite the opposite in fact), and neither is pointing this out the reason the country is do divided. The country is divided because Bush lied, and only half the country realizes it.
Another mis-informed Republican you are. Protesters in New York were led into a street which was then blocked off by police on both ends, after which the police started arresting people and shipping them off to a Guantanamo-like detention facility. In all, at least 1800 protesters were arrested.
The real kicker is that Republicans don't understand Republicans. A majority of Republicans misunderstand a large number of Bush's positions (they mistakenly think he supports Kyoto, the International Criminal Court and the treaty banning landmines, for example). A majority of Republicans also think that Iraq had WMD, that Saddam was supporting Al Qaeda, etc. Democrats are much more knowledgable about these things.
What good will that do? You can be minding your own business, have no weapons of mass destruction, no link to 9/11, pose no threat to the US, and then the US will *still* invade you and kill over one hundred thousand civilians.