Mostly because a stock few want isn't worth much but a stock that people want is worth a lot. In this case few want it, but one in individual REALLY wants it driving thier cost up. Since stock price is not "real" any way (not based on physical qualities such as scarcity or manufacturing dificulty) then the price seems very fluid.
I'll use an example I find I am currently bit with. I own two guns that I might sell (well, I only want to sell the first as the second has sentimental and neatness value making the selling price such that no one is going to pay it).
One, a muzzleloader (black poweder rifle) sells new for about 550 as I have it equipped. I'm asking 350 for it (and they sell new at 550 regularly) but can't sell it to save my life. It is worth, as far as the parts, fit, machining quality, and such way more than 350 but I can't get that for it. I have been unsuccessful making trades for it for an item the depreciates where a firearm increases in value. I really do not understand why as I would take some of the prices and trades I've offered.
The second gun, a WWII vintage rifle is barely worth 200 based on quality of shooting and machining. Yet because of collectors wanting said gun I could easily get 1000 for it (been offered that much directly), and it goes up signifigantly every year. I would not pay anything near that for the stylr of gun (though since it has value other than simply what it is I will not sell it except for great sums of money).
Stocks seem to be the same thing. Disney, as disney with Eisner in charge, is worth a certain price. Comcast trying to take it over is worth much more.
I, personally, would sell Disney in a heart beat at a fair merket value as there is probably little "other" (say, sentimental) value in stock, but then again I'm not rich off the stock market and don't know its ins and outs.
"Is humankind so pathetic that the only reason we want to go into space is to expand the tourism industry?"
No, there is NASA and others that do it, they have many dedicated staff that would make much more money in industry.
Also how much have you donated to space travel? Why should a company (not govt) invest millions of dollars for the heck of it? Same reason you do not give up large portions of your salarly willingly for a myriad of other cause. There is nothing pathetic about it.
It's not preciesly greed, it's putting the carrot out for the donkey.
I am willing, and have, given parts of my salary for causes I greatly believe in (though not space travel - I probalby would if I saw someplace and thought about when I had some extra money). But my paltry contributions would get no-one nowhere in space, nor would what the vast majority of individual companies could give would be a dent in it. But if there was said carrot they are willing to gamble.
And lastly, should they actually flat out give the millions upon millions and time I bet there would be a great deal of people (not saying you, I don't know you and have no idea) that would lambast them for not giving to some charity or other org.
In short, without said payoff there is dis-incentive for a business to go to space. That is why the govt taxes us and spends on the grand human/technology driving projects that have no real hope of turning a profit (while there have been individual compnents that have made a fortune it is small compared to the overall cost of space exploration - not to mention had they actually patened the stuff it probably would not have spread as far as it did rendering smaller sales on top of that).
"It just feels tacky and it is far removed from my utopian Star Trek TNG tendencies of space exploration."
Remeber two things. By the time of star trek much of the scarcity issues that drive our economy were gone (especially by TNG) allowing pretty much everyone to persue thier humanitarian ends. I would imagine if we ever achieve all the food/energy/environment/toys we could want then Star Trek philanthropy will be a reality. Even then you had other types of greed/carrot. And secondly the Ferengi:)
"I never said that NPR didn't have any bias. But as others have said: name some that have less than NPR. Other than maybe the Associated Press, you aren't going to find one in this country."
I disagree, NPR can be very biased in which facts they choose to talk about. They are probably one of the worst as telling highly biased information while sounding non-biased. I've listened to some of thier discussions on guns and they are quite mis-informed almost to the point of outright lieing.
"If you're talking about the 'sexual relations' fiasco, it wasn't perjury, much less a felony. In fact you can't even prove what he said in court was a lie. For a statement to be perjury, it has to be relevant. Which is exactly how the judge ruled: wether or not he lied about the blow job, it was irrelevant to the rest of the case."
Yes, I'm talking about being asked if he had sexual relations with her and he said no. Seing that it was relevent in said case it was perjury and was thus disbarred (http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/05/22/clinton.disbarred/ and http://www.hench.net/2001/z100101a.htm). Seems the state supreme court and the federal supreme court quite disagree with your assertion. AFAIK they pretty much overrule any other courts you can cite.
While Clinton continually calimed it to not be perjury most other judges and lawyers said it was. The only reason he wasn't prosecuted was because he was an ex-president agreed to the disbarring - you do not get disbarred for following the laws. Not to mention that if it really was irrelevent (and even relevant) to the case he could have refused to answer.
Most people call getting a blow job sexual ralations and saying "I didn't" to mean, well you didn't. I think there is ample proof that he ejaculated by her ministrations - once more what the vast majority of people consider sexual relations (to put it another way, would you consider your signifigant other being orally stimulated by other people to be ok and not sexual relations? I bet not).
That is why the focus on only what Clinton said and sex in the oval office is extremely biased while not mis-quoteing anyone. Those two things are irrelevent and the courts gave decisions to the contrary of what is reported.
"The chief weapons inspector was just testifying in the Senate that Iraq doesn't have any WMD's, but what does the media decide to harp on? The so called "Dean scream"."
Much as they ignored Clinton's felony perjury and focused on sex. Nor did the weapons inspector say that there was no reason to believe before hand there was no evidence (in fact his testimony was the opposite - plenty of evidence). His testimony was that there is no WMD program which is pretty obvious at this time with full hindsight, but that Saddam and many other saw ample evidence that there was - though obviously faked or faulty intelligence.
"But we could compare anecdotes all day. What I really think it comes down to, is: the vast majority of American media doesn't cover the news, they present it. They couldn't just state the facts and What Really Happened to save their lives; every story is presented with spin and bias."
Agreed, but that is why something like 70%+ (and averaging much higher than that) to the democratic party in the mainstream media that many try to pass as unbiased or biased towards republicans is important. I don't mind bias in the media, in fact it is quite hard to do without it. There is a great deal of information out there and it must be filtered. Just wear the bias outside so we can interpret it. I would rather listen (and do) to extremely biased media on both sides than those who say they are unbiased but are not. As such most mainstream media is useless.
"Which is why its soooooo nice listening to NPR, because unless they're interviewing someone or doing investigative reporting, they just state the facts."
In this, I do not agree. the choice in which fact to report is important. Ultimatly no matter what you do there will be a bias - you can minimise it or maximise it, and the bias may be anything (I personally feel most of the TV media is ratings first and liberal second). NPR can vary greatly depending on the particular show, much as other talk radio can.
Nor have I ever, nor will I ever, claim to be unbiased.
I'll give you a hint: The vast majority of democrats are liberal and the vast majority of republicans are conservative. At one time in the past (pre-60's or so) the roles were fairly reversed. But since I live in the 2000's I'll use thier current political agendas.
I learned this by listening to what the candidates/electorate for the parties say on c-span, I don't particularly like talk radio or talk TV for my political news, much prefer listening to the individual politicians speak themselvs. Though I do have an addiction to Drudge Report who many consider a right wing shill after his exposings of Clinton.
What would you consider the democrats to mostly be? Conservative? Since the Democrats also claim to be either liberal or progressive I would also tend to take thier word for it. Your idea that dems are not liberal is in a very small minority among political circles, even inside the party and among thier supporters.
I agree they are greedy little fucks, but they are doing a piss poor job of sucking up to the administration or the republicans. Unless you consider giving most of thier money to the other side as playing nice or sucking up. I, for one, wouldn't consider my oponent getting 70 percent or more of the money to be sucking up to me and I bet you would not either. I would consider where thier money is actually going a much nicer counter than where I think they should be spending it.
Though Disney seems to be pretty good at following the "suck up" and "greedy little fucks" by looking at thier past/current contributions. But hey, another reason to put Disney at the bottom of the list, they can't even take a stand past thier own short term profits!
I know, that was more or less my point. I've dealt with others who felt that democrats were very conservative before.
I'm about as far right as you can get in the US yet I can see that many to the left of me are not leftist or liberal, I've never understood why so many way left have an issue with telling the difference.
As far as I can tell I haven't been dreamily talking about raping, torturing, or killing slaves. But I sure do understand them greatly dislikeing those that do - I empathise with that fairly well.
I do not like the practice of slavery and do not feel bad about the end of civil war (that is, the south loosing - it was the best and correct outcome). Grant did the correct thing and even though he defeated us few have animosity towards him (in fact many show affection based on his treatment of the south). Sherman did the wrong thing and is reviled here. Just as there were slaves that stayed with thier former masters there were ones that immediatly left. I would suppose the treatment and resentment is similar to the difference in Sherman and Grant.
The firebombing of dresdin was the US and Britain dropping incediary bombs on targets that held nothing but refugies. They burned many many "houses" (shanties and lean too's) because of the general lack of quality. There was no show of force, it was entirely meant to completely demoralise the enemy by showing there was no place to run from a painfull death. That had long been borderline to wrong rules of conduct.
The atomic bomb was a show of strength - something well accepted. Whoever developed it would have immediatly used it as we did. At the time very few decried its use, and I for one do not now. Many mane lives on each side was saved by the horrid sacrifice of those few.
As such Dresdin is borderline terrorism, the A-bomb was warefare for the time.
I've ceased to believe this. After looking at the current state of the world I find that the victors write thier history and think that no one else knows any different while the victims (and much of the rest of the world) remember. It's not hard to find grudges in europe that go back thousands of years where the victors thought they wrote history and it turns out that 300 generations later thier decendandts still remeber the old hatred.
At one time a bunch of people hiding in the woods and sniping at officers was beyond reproach, and were the "terrorists" of their time.
Not really, I've heard this one said many times. While it wasn't normal it was by no means so extraordinary that one would call it "terrorism". That statement needs a little more backing up than "I said so". The British at the time used it as propaganda but pretty much every known army has *always* done so, it so foolish not to that any and all commanders know to do it.
During the civil war, the north took a radical step by attacking civilian and logistical targets instead of purely military ones. A move that would have been reviled had the north ended up losing, instead it's hailed as tactical genius.
Have you ever been to the south? Having grown up there and currently living there I can tell you that is a *very* reviled thing that Sherman did. It went well beyond "unconventional warefare" even for it's time. Grant tried to reign Sherman in and was pretty much unable to. It is probably the number one reason for resentment between the north and the south today. Seeing a northerner on TV dreamily talking of poisoning, raping, and torturing my great great grandparents doesn't make me feel too happy.
Conventions of warfare go OUT THE WINDOW when you are faced with a militarial superior enemy. Calling palestinians freedom fighters is no more or less accurate than calling our american forefathers heroes.
The reality is that for one side they do, that doesn't make it legitamate. Our American forefathers fought pretty much within the rules of war, many other revolutionaries have also.
A large part of terrorism is attacking civilian targets (not as collateral targets, but as the main targets), as far as I know they didn't attack innocent civilian targets over in england. Neither did the British for the most part. Most of the civil war was fought in the same way, in the places civilians were specifically targeted the victims hate the agressors (no need to look further than native americans for another example). There are few recent wars where people did and in most of those cases it was normal rules of wars (WWII for instance, though even then the fire bombing of dresdin was seen as over the line back then and that was probably the most "no rules" modern war ever).
"..in the real world, you have your government's charter/constitution which allows you rights, and hopefully, a good amount of legal interpretation to further define your rights. Your government (one hopes) doesn't revoke them."
I don't know where you are from, if you are from the US I shudder to think what educational system you learned that from. If you are not then I think the founding fathers had a good model to follow.
The founding fathers had a fairly large argument when drafting the Bill of Rights. One group thought that without spelling them out that in later dates people would assume that those rights do not really exist and laws can be made to restrict them. The other group feared that spelling them out implied that the govt gave you said rights and can take them away.
In other words they all agreed they were all rights you had just for being alive, if those rights are not there then you have an opressive govt.
Given the way the US moves today I find it interesting that both sides were correct.
I'm pretty happy with Opera also. I have had better succes in cross-platform usage, though others have had a different experience there.
I use Opera as my main browser, Mozilla if it fails, and finally MSIE if both do. My personal experience has been that Opera,Mozilla (or firebird), and MSIE have about the same amount of problem webpages, just different ones. Opera's and Mozilla's have about equivalent crap-blockers (pop-up and other types of stuff). Feature set is about the same, one wins in a few departments, the other in a few different ones. I like Opera's interface better and use thier "wins" more than mozilla's so I use it mainly, others may vary.
MSIE sucks monkey balls in general though. I have converted all my relatives away from it and all have been *very* happy I have.
Just to note, Spybot Search and Destroy is also needed.
Each miss a little and find stuff the other misses. I regularly run both, even using non-ms browsers/mail clients there is a good deal of crap isntalled, each finding a good dael of ad-ware or tracking devices.
The difference being that those govts had a much easier mechanism in place for the average person to have a say in thier govt. Chinese people have little say.
I also agree with much of what you say. I find myself in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation and that sucks.
I guess I figure that thier govt is probably more willing to change if they are faced with the "rich" countries not purchasing thier good than business as usual.
Basically, are you willing to screw people in the short term to have great long term advancement. That's a hard thing to stomach, especially if it isn't you (or me) who is going to starve and I do not see a clear moral path.
I do believe that was the point. There is a high degree of correlation between well to do countries and regulations. The regulations do not cause them to be prosperous, prosperity allows them to make such regulations and enforce them.
It *is* the chinese that are allowing said traffic to be routed through them (unless you know of a way to send a message through thier machines without routing it through there). It is not raelly the chinese peoples fault per se, but they do hold some level of responsibility for allowing it to occur.
I know how it feels. I think it is still the best way to quit.
Over a year ago I got an acute case of pneumonia (I've always had lung problems with bronchitis and occasional pneumonia, but nothing like this). Basically I was on over 1000mg of various strong antibiotics for well over a month (about 40 days or so). I am still having lung issues.
The net effect of this was after I regained enough of my mental acuity to remeber to take my blood pressure regularly I discovered that because of the combination of lack of oxygen and caffine intake my *at rest* heart rate was 140-160 beats per minute. Not to mention what it was after running up the steps (and why doing so greatly winded me, more than simply what my lungs should have done).
Basically I was given a choice of quit taking caffene or die - I chose to quit caffene. It ended up not being as hard as I had imagined. Withdrawl was maybe a week, sleepy/lethargic for a few months after that (though that could very well have been part of the recovery from pneumonia).
I still miss it sometimes when I need to stay awake for longer periods of time. In the end it's pretty easy if you want to, if you don't really want to then any and all things make you go back with excuses (nothing wrong with that, just that is what people, including myself, do in those cases). If you want it then it really doesn't matter how you quit - but I will propose that anything but "no more!" and you really don't want it.
No, he didn't. Neither in the books or the movie did he actually make physical contact. He carried it in the envelope or used tongs.
Re:Que the argument from ignorance fallacies
on
Global Dimming
·
· Score: 1
No, this would be akin to biologists discovering a new organell in the cell that does miraculous and unexplained things touching every part of the model they have used for years requiring a rewrite of it.
Or in Chemistry/physics land it is the equivilent from going from the Bohr model to the Statistical model of the atom - it changed the way we thought things worked and many predictions.
And, if/when you had taken those clases in college your were probably explictly told to ignore everything you had learned before becasue it was incorrect (at which point you also were probably quite irritated and public schools and took them a notch lower).
I feel the same way when I read things like this, or when at my last job I saw some of the climate people quoted frequently running a distributed app on my cluster with 64 processes on the head node (because they has forgetton to PVM_SPAWN() thier processes) and argue that their code was perfect and my cluster was screwed up and want me to fix it (even when shown thier code doesn't spawn processes on the virtual machine, only the local. To the day I left they thought our cluster was really slow).
I would say that giving when giving 100 year projections on something as complex as the weather without having anything near a complete understanding of it you should take it with a bit of caution.
AT&T tried to do that to me, I simply ignored the messeges. At some point they sent me a non-form/automated letter informing me of the emminent change (with a note to quite running servers - which I wasn't, I had queued downloads), I e-mailed them back the contract I had signed along with the address of the local FTC and newspaper (I don't know what they would have done if I had actually sent them there though) with the relevent parts bolded. I never heard another word nor was I cahrged anything other than the agreed upon rate.
There was a local chinese resturaunt that actually got in trouble for commercialing all you can eat crab legs but telling people who ate too many to leave. So sometimes the govt will step in on smaller things like that.
And should you still be able to find the *live* feeds you can find the nearly identical camera angle (they were taken from the same building that reporters were staying at, just different rooms).
You can clearly see MANY more people (both a group around the vehicle nearly 4 times larger *and* people ringing the square *and* people walking up and down the side streets *and* no cars as of yet stopped) along with the sun at a completely different angle (as in definate long shadows). Immediatly after the statue was torn down most dispersed with different parts of it (remember the video of people riding the head around town while it was being dragged for example?).
Plus Chalabi being there is irrelevent. Given his placement there there is no reason to think he wouldn't know that the troops would be there around then and would want to participate in tearing the statue down (I know I would were I in his shoes).
That picture was easily debunked when it first came out and the continual quoting of it is no better than the complaints you probably have against many pro-war people accepting information simply because it fits thier political idealology.
Dell supports at least one open source projects I used to work on, oscar
They did a pretty good job of supplying free test equipment and thier labs provided a lot of internal testing time. So either the original article is incorrect or the person quoted in the article is not familiar with Dell's involvement in Open Source projects.
So lets not totally bash them yet (in fact, I liked the people I dealt with there a great deal and can not speak too highly of them).
Welcome to the global anarchy we call the internet. You can't have an unregulated decetralised highly controlled environment. Regardles of what the US passes it will only be applicable in the US (which isn't where the unregulated relays to worry about are anyway).
You get one or the other, personally I will trade the use of spam filters for nearly uncontrollable access to information.
Slashdot Mirror
Mostly because a stock few want isn't worth much but a stock that people want is worth a lot. In this case few want it, but one in individual REALLY wants it driving thier cost up. Since stock price is not "real" any way (not based on physical qualities such as scarcity or manufacturing dificulty) then the price seems very fluid.
I'll use an example I find I am currently bit with. I own two guns that I might sell (well, I only want to sell the first as the second has sentimental and neatness value making the selling price such that no one is going to pay it).
One, a muzzleloader (black poweder rifle) sells new for about 550 as I have it equipped. I'm asking 350 for it (and they sell new at 550 regularly) but can't sell it to save my life. It is worth, as far as the parts, fit, machining quality, and such way more than 350 but I can't get that for it. I have been unsuccessful making trades for it for an item the depreciates where a firearm increases in value. I really do not understand why as I would take some of the prices and trades I've offered.
The second gun, a WWII vintage rifle is barely worth 200 based on quality of shooting and machining. Yet because of collectors wanting said gun I could easily get 1000 for it (been offered that much directly), and it goes up signifigantly every year. I would not pay anything near that for the stylr of gun (though since it has value other than simply what it is I will not sell it except for great sums of money).
Stocks seem to be the same thing. Disney, as disney with Eisner in charge, is worth a certain price. Comcast trying to take it over is worth much more.
I, personally, would sell Disney in a heart beat at a fair merket value as there is probably little "other" (say, sentimental) value in stock, but then again I'm not rich off the stock market and don't know its ins and outs.
"Is humankind so pathetic that the only reason we want to go into space is to expand the tourism industry?"
:)
No, there is NASA and others that do it, they have many dedicated staff that would make much more money in industry.
Also how much have you donated to space travel? Why should a company (not govt) invest millions of dollars for the heck of it? Same reason you do not give up large portions of your salarly willingly for a myriad of other cause. There is nothing pathetic about it.
It's not preciesly greed, it's putting the carrot out for the donkey.
I am willing, and have, given parts of my salary for causes I greatly believe in (though not space travel - I probalby would if I saw someplace and thought about when I had some extra money). But my paltry contributions would get no-one nowhere in space, nor would what the vast majority of individual companies could give would be a dent in it. But if there was said carrot they are willing to gamble.
And lastly, should they actually flat out give the millions upon millions and time I bet there would be a great deal of people (not saying you, I don't know you and have no idea) that would lambast them for not giving to some charity or other org.
In short, without said payoff there is dis-incentive for a business to go to space. That is why the govt taxes us and spends on the grand human/technology driving projects that have no real hope of turning a profit (while there have been individual compnents that have made a fortune it is small compared to the overall cost of space exploration - not to mention had they actually patened the stuff it probably would not have spread as far as it did rendering smaller sales on top of that).
"It just feels tacky and it is far removed from my utopian Star Trek TNG tendencies of space exploration."
Remeber two things. By the time of star trek much of the scarcity issues that drive our economy were gone (especially by TNG) allowing pretty much everyone to persue thier humanitarian ends. I would imagine if we ever achieve all the food/energy/environment/toys we could want then Star Trek philanthropy will be a reality. Even then you had other types of greed/carrot. And secondly the Ferengi
"I never said that NPR didn't have any bias. But as others have said: name some that have less than NPR. Other than maybe the Associated Press, you aren't going to find one in this country."
2 /clinton.disbarred/ and http://www.hench.net/2001/z100101a.htm). Seems the state supreme court and the federal supreme court quite disagree with your assertion. AFAIK they pretty much overrule any other courts you can cite.
I disagree, NPR can be very biased in which facts they choose to talk about. They are probably one of the worst as telling highly biased information while sounding non-biased. I've listened to some of thier discussions on guns and they are quite mis-informed almost to the point of outright lieing.
"If you're talking about the 'sexual relations' fiasco, it wasn't perjury, much less a felony. In fact you can't even prove what he said in court was a lie. For a statement to be perjury, it has to be relevant. Which is exactly how the judge ruled: wether or not he lied about the blow job, it was irrelevant to the rest of the case."
Yes, I'm talking about being asked if he had sexual relations with her and he said no. Seing that it was relevent in said case it was perjury and was thus disbarred (http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/05/2
While Clinton continually calimed it to not be perjury most other judges and lawyers said it was. The only reason he wasn't prosecuted was because he was an ex-president agreed to the disbarring - you do not get disbarred for following the laws. Not to mention that if it really was irrelevent (and even relevant) to the case he could have refused to answer.
Most people call getting a blow job sexual ralations and saying "I didn't" to mean, well you didn't. I think there is ample proof that he ejaculated by her ministrations - once more what the vast majority of people consider sexual relations (to put it another way, would you consider your signifigant other being orally stimulated by other people to be ok and not sexual relations? I bet not).
That is why the focus on only what Clinton said and sex in the oval office is extremely biased while not mis-quoteing anyone. Those two things are irrelevent and the courts gave decisions to the contrary of what is reported.
"The chief weapons inspector was just testifying in the Senate that Iraq doesn't have any WMD's, but what does the media decide to harp on? The so called "Dean scream"."
Much as they ignored Clinton's felony perjury and focused on sex. Nor did the weapons inspector say that there was no reason to believe before hand there was no evidence (in fact his testimony was the opposite - plenty of evidence). His testimony was that there is no WMD program which is pretty obvious at this time with full hindsight, but that Saddam and many other saw ample evidence that there was - though obviously faked or faulty intelligence.
"But we could compare anecdotes all day. What I really think it comes down to, is: the vast majority of American media doesn't cover the news, they present it. They couldn't just state the facts and What Really Happened to save their lives; every story is presented with spin and bias."
Agreed, but that is why something like 70%+ (and averaging much higher than that) to the democratic party in the mainstream media that many try to pass as unbiased or biased towards republicans is important. I don't mind bias in the media, in fact it is quite hard to do without it. There is a great deal of information out there and it must be filtered. Just wear the bias outside so we can interpret it. I would rather listen (and do) to extremely biased media on both sides than those who say they are unbiased but are not. As such most mainstream media is useless.
"Which is why its soooooo nice listening to NPR, because unless they're interviewing someone or doing investigative reporting, they just state the facts."
In this, I do not agree. the choice in which fact to report is important. Ultimatly no matter what you do there will be a bias - you can minimise it or maximise it, and the bias may be anything (I personally feel most of the TV media is ratings first and liberal second). NPR can vary greatly depending on the particular show, much as other talk radio can.
Nor have I ever, nor will I ever, claim to be unbiased.
I'll give you a hint: The vast majority of democrats are liberal and the vast majority of republicans are conservative. At one time in the past (pre-60's or so) the roles were fairly reversed. But since I live in the 2000's I'll use thier current political agendas.
I learned this by listening to what the candidates/electorate for the parties say on c-span, I don't particularly like talk radio or talk TV for my political news, much prefer listening to the individual politicians speak themselvs. Though I do have an addiction to Drudge Report who many consider a right wing shill after his exposings of Clinton.
What would you consider the democrats to mostly be? Conservative? Since the Democrats also claim to be either liberal or progressive I would also tend to take thier word for it. Your idea that dems are not liberal is in a very small minority among political circles, even inside the party and among thier supporters.
Large barrels/crates for shipping from third world countries after ordering your bride?
I agree they are greedy little fucks, but they are doing a piss poor job of sucking up to the administration or the republicans. Unless you consider giving most of thier money to the other side as playing nice or sucking up. I, for one, wouldn't consider my oponent getting 70 percent or more of the money to be sucking up to me and I bet you would not either. I would consider where thier money is actually going a much nicer counter than where I think they should be spending it.
Though Disney seems to be pretty good at following the "suck up" and "greedy little fucks" by looking at thier past/current contributions. But hey, another reason to put Disney at the bottom of the list, they can't even take a stand past thier own short term profits!
I know, that was more or less my point. I've dealt with others who felt that democrats were very conservative before.
I'm about as far right as you can get in the US yet I can see that many to the left of me are not leftist or liberal, I've never understood why so many way left have an issue with telling the difference.
Probably about the same I would suppose.
As far as I can tell I haven't been dreamily talking about raping, torturing, or killing slaves. But I sure do understand them greatly dislikeing those that do - I empathise with that fairly well.
I do not like the practice of slavery and do not feel bad about the end of civil war (that is, the south loosing - it was the best and correct outcome). Grant did the correct thing and even though he defeated us few have animosity towards him (in fact many show affection based on his treatment of the south). Sherman did the wrong thing and is reviled here. Just as there were slaves that stayed with thier former masters there were ones that immediatly left. I would suppose the treatment and resentment is similar to the difference in Sherman and Grant.
You are confusing two issues.
The firebombing of dresdin was the US and Britain dropping incediary bombs on targets that held nothing but refugies. They burned many many "houses" (shanties and lean too's) because of the general lack of quality. There was no show of force, it was entirely meant to completely demoralise the enemy by showing there was no place to run from a painfull death. That had long been borderline to wrong rules of conduct.
The atomic bomb was a show of strength - something well accepted. Whoever developed it would have immediatly used it as we did. At the time very few decried its use, and I for one do not now. Many mane lives on each side was saved by the horrid sacrifice of those few.
As such Dresdin is borderline terrorism, the A-bomb was warefare for the time.
I do believe the same can be said if you do not believe that democrats are liberal.
You may want to check out who the media organisations give thier money too and thus support
s p? Ind=B02
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.a
and choose any of the years. If giving 70-95% of your money to the democrats is considered conservative I would hate to see your idea of liberal.
history is written by the victors man.
I've ceased to believe this. After looking at the current state of the world I find that the victors write thier history and think that no one else knows any different while the victims (and much of the rest of the world) remember. It's not hard to find grudges in europe that go back thousands of years where the victors thought they wrote history and it turns out that 300 generations later thier decendandts still remeber the old hatred.
At one time a bunch of people hiding in the woods and sniping at officers was beyond reproach, and were the "terrorists" of their time.
Not really, I've heard this one said many times. While it wasn't normal it was by no means so extraordinary that one would call it "terrorism". That statement needs a little more backing up than "I said so". The British at the time used it as propaganda but pretty much every known army has *always* done so, it so foolish not to that any and all commanders know to do it.
During the civil war, the north took a radical step by attacking civilian and logistical targets instead of purely military ones. A move that would have been reviled had the north ended up losing, instead it's hailed as tactical genius.
Have you ever been to the south? Having grown up there and currently living there I can tell you that is a *very* reviled thing that Sherman did. It went well beyond "unconventional warefare" even for it's time. Grant tried to reign Sherman in and was pretty much unable to. It is probably the number one reason for resentment between the north and the south today. Seeing a northerner on TV dreamily talking of poisoning, raping, and torturing my great great grandparents doesn't make me feel too happy.
Conventions of warfare go OUT THE WINDOW when you are faced with a militarial superior enemy. Calling palestinians freedom fighters is no more or less accurate than calling our american forefathers heroes.
The reality is that for one side they do, that doesn't make it legitamate. Our American forefathers fought pretty much within the rules of war, many other revolutionaries have also.
A large part of terrorism is attacking civilian targets (not as collateral targets, but as the main targets), as far as I know they didn't attack innocent civilian targets over in england. Neither did the British for the most part. Most of the civil war was fought in the same way, in the places civilians were specifically targeted the victims hate the agressors (no need to look further than native americans for another example). There are few recent wars where people did and in most of those cases it was normal rules of wars (WWII for instance, though even then the fire bombing of dresdin was seen as over the line back then and that was probably the most "no rules" modern war ever).
"..in the real world, you have your government's charter/constitution which allows you rights, and hopefully, a good amount of legal interpretation to further define your rights. Your government (one hopes) doesn't revoke them."
I don't know where you are from, if you are from the US I shudder to think what educational system you learned that from. If you are not then I think the founding fathers had a good model to follow.
The founding fathers had a fairly large argument when drafting the Bill of Rights. One group thought that without spelling them out that in later dates people would assume that those rights do not really exist and laws can be made to restrict them. The other group feared that spelling them out implied that the govt gave you said rights and can take them away.
In other words they all agreed they were all rights you had just for being alive, if those rights are not there then you have an opressive govt.
Given the way the US moves today I find it interesting that both sides were correct.
I'm pretty happy with Opera also. I have had better succes in cross-platform usage, though others have had a different experience there.
I use Opera as my main browser, Mozilla if it fails, and finally MSIE if both do. My personal experience has been that Opera,Mozilla (or firebird), and MSIE have about the same amount of problem webpages, just different ones. Opera's and Mozilla's have about equivalent crap-blockers (pop-up and other types of stuff). Feature set is about the same, one wins in a few departments, the other in a few different ones. I like Opera's interface better and use thier "wins" more than mozilla's so I use it mainly, others may vary.
MSIE sucks monkey balls in general though. I have converted all my relatives away from it and all have been *very* happy I have.
Just to note, Spybot Search and Destroy is also needed.
Each miss a little and find stuff the other misses. I regularly run both, even using non-ms browsers/mail clients there is a good deal of crap isntalled, each finding a good dael of ad-ware or tracking devices.
The difference being that those govts had a much easier mechanism in place for the average person to have a say in thier govt. Chinese people have little say.
I also agree with much of what you say. I find myself in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation and that sucks.
I guess I figure that thier govt is probably more willing to change if they are faced with the "rich" countries not purchasing thier good than business as usual.
Basically, are you willing to screw people in the short term to have great long term advancement. That's a hard thing to stomach, especially if it isn't you (or me) who is going to starve and I do not see a clear moral path.
I do believe that was the point. There is a high degree of correlation between well to do countries and regulations. The regulations do not cause them to be prosperous, prosperity allows them to make such regulations and enforce them.
It *is* the chinese that are allowing said traffic to be routed through them (unless you know of a way to send a message through thier machines without routing it through there). It is not raelly the chinese peoples fault per se, but they do hold some level of responsibility for allowing it to occur.
I know how it feels. I think it is still the best way to quit.
Over a year ago I got an acute case of pneumonia (I've always had lung problems with bronchitis and occasional pneumonia, but nothing like this). Basically I was on over 1000mg of various strong antibiotics for well over a month (about 40 days or so). I am still having lung issues.
The net effect of this was after I regained enough of my mental acuity to remeber to take my blood pressure regularly I discovered that because of the combination of lack of oxygen and caffine intake my *at rest* heart rate was 140-160 beats per minute. Not to mention what it was after running up the steps (and why doing so greatly winded me, more than simply what my lungs should have done).
Basically I was given a choice of quit taking caffene or die - I chose to quit caffene. It ended up not being as hard as I had imagined. Withdrawl was maybe a week, sleepy/lethargic for a few months after that (though that could very well have been part of the recovery from pneumonia).
I still miss it sometimes when I need to stay awake for longer periods of time. In the end it's pretty easy if you want to, if you don't really want to then any and all things make you go back with excuses (nothing wrong with that, just that is what people, including myself, do in those cases). If you want it then it really doesn't matter how you quit - but I will propose that anything but "no more!" and you really don't want it.
No, he didn't. Neither in the books or the movie did he actually make physical contact. He carried it in the envelope or used tongs.
No, this would be akin to biologists discovering a new organell in the cell that does miraculous and unexplained things touching every part of the model they have used for years requiring a rewrite of it.
Or in Chemistry/physics land it is the equivilent from going from the Bohr model to the Statistical model of the atom - it changed the way we thought things worked and many predictions.
And, if/when you had taken those clases in college your were probably explictly told to ignore everything you had learned before becasue it was incorrect (at which point you also were probably quite irritated and public schools and took them a notch lower).
I feel the same way when I read things like this, or when at my last job I saw some of the climate people quoted frequently running a distributed app on my cluster with 64 processes on the head node (because they has forgetton to PVM_SPAWN() thier processes) and argue that their code was perfect and my cluster was screwed up and want me to fix it (even when shown thier code doesn't spawn processes on the virtual machine, only the local. To the day I left they thought our cluster was really slow).
I would say that giving when giving 100 year projections on something as complex as the weather without having anything near a complete understanding of it you should take it with a bit of caution.
AT&T tried to do that to me, I simply ignored the messeges. At some point they sent me a non-form/automated letter informing me of the emminent change (with a note to quite running servers - which I wasn't, I had queued downloads), I e-mailed them back the contract I had signed along with the address of the local FTC and newspaper (I don't know what they would have done if I had actually sent them there though) with the relevent parts bolded. I never heard another word nor was I cahrged anything other than the agreed upon rate.
There was a local chinese resturaunt that actually got in trouble for commercialing all you can eat crab legs but telling people who ate too many to leave. So sometimes the govt will step in on smaller things like that.
And should you still be able to find the *live* feeds you can find the nearly identical camera angle (they were taken from the same building that reporters were staying at, just different rooms).
You can clearly see MANY more people (both a group around the vehicle nearly 4 times larger *and* people ringing the square *and* people walking up and down the side streets *and* no cars as of yet stopped) along with the sun at a completely different angle (as in definate long shadows). Immediatly after the statue was torn down most dispersed with different parts of it (remember the video of people riding the head around town while it was being dragged for example?).
Plus Chalabi being there is irrelevent. Given his placement there there is no reason to think he wouldn't know that the troops would be there around then and would want to participate in tearing the statue down (I know I would were I in his shoes).
That picture was easily debunked when it first came out and the continual quoting of it is no better than the complaints you probably have against many pro-war people accepting information simply because it fits thier political idealology.
Dell supports at least one open source projects I used to work on, oscar
They did a pretty good job of supplying free test equipment and thier labs provided a lot of internal testing time. So either the original article is incorrect or the person quoted in the article is not familiar with Dell's involvement in Open Source projects.
So lets not totally bash them yet (in fact, I liked the people I dealt with there a great deal and can not speak too highly of them).
Welcome to the global anarchy we call the internet. You can't have an unregulated decetralised highly controlled environment. Regardles of what the US passes it will only be applicable in the US (which isn't where the unregulated relays to worry about are anyway).
You get one or the other, personally I will trade the use of spam filters for nearly uncontrollable access to information.