Fibrillation is a random, chaotic electrical firing of the heart muscles - and no coordinated contraction or blood pumping happens.
Defibrillators sends an electrical impulse through the heart TO STOP IT ENTIRELY by causing the cells to fire, then enter an absolutly refractory period and allow the normal pacemaking cells (in the AV node, before the Bundle of His) which should recover first to try to take over paceing the heart. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't.
Defibrillators are also used in cardioversion, where a faster than normal heart beat is treated to slow it down. Sometimes Adenosine is used instead. A bolus of Adenosine is given IV. It is quite interesting to watch a patients' face when their heart stops from the medication, then restarts a second or two later...
I can't gainsay your numbers, but want to know WHY you "get more energy per square meter from the sun on the equator than you do in, say, Portland Oregon..."
If it is because of the angle of incidence due to the curvature of the earth, then I call bullshit. How hard can it be to angle the solar panel so that it is perpendicular to the sun?
If it is because of the additional atmosphere it must travel through, or the additional distance it travels from the sun, then what does the sqrt(2) come from? I would have thought the amount of radiation would fall off as the distance from the sun increased, but the distance would not be much more than 4000 miles difference from the sun, and after the 93,000,000 miles already traveled, the.0043% difference would not have had that much impact.
Not disputing your numbers, just wanting to know what they mean - I think I can learn something here.
2000 pound car. Approx 144 square inches of contact for all 4 tires.
2000 pounds/144 square inches gives slightly under 14 pounds per square inch of pressure - only slightly LESS than atmospheric pressure at sea level (14.7 pounds per square inch).
All the slight shifts due to engine placement or driver or no driver isn't going to change this much. I.e., assumming the driver weighed almost 900 pounds. Then the 2000 pound car will weigh almost 2900 pounds including the driver. The pressure goes all the way up to a staggering 20 pounds per square inch.
Point being, the flexibility of the tires allows the pressure to be distributed more evenly. Another poster noted that a 500 pound anvil on your foot would hurt more than a car, and they are correct - because the anvil is not flexible and the weight concentrates in a smaller contact area, so there is a higher pound/sq. in. on parts of your foot.
I had my foot run over by a Chrysler Newport (land barge) - no idea of how much it weighed, but would guess 2000 as a MINIMUM. It was the drivers front tire and it only ran over the front half of the front part of my foot. They were moving slowly, but I was not sure I had been run over until I checked the tire markes across the toe of the shoe. Did not hurt me or the shoes.
1) According to the article, "many" of his inventions are new to him or his area, BUT NOT to other areas.
He is widely admired among the academic community, although some point out that many of his inventions are not original...
"I have seen some of his inventions, like this car," said Edrish, a lecturer in the electronics department of Kabul University. "They are new for Afghans, but these things have already been invented elsewhere in the world."
2) According to the article, he made more than the average citizen of Afghanistan CURRENTLY makes in TEN YEARS from his radio 'invention' when he was 17 (at 62 now, that makes it 45 years ago - circa 1959).
He made more than a thousand of the radios which were sold at less than two US dollars a piece.
According to several sources, the CURRENT average income in Afghanistan is between $180 and $200 PER YEAR.
According to the article, he is CURRENTLY living rent free and receiving $200 PER MONTH (average ANNUAL income for Afghanistan) while working on his current project - and his FAMILY is being supported by his four grown sons.
I agree that he is not making MASSIVE amounts of money - either by US standards or even by Afghanistan standards, but he sure doesn't seem to be hurting, either.
According to the US Census Bureau,the median (NOT average - two different numbers) income in the US was $42,228 as of the last census. If we assume the median is exactly the same as the average (they are not, not necessarily even close, but it gives us a number to throw around, and Google isn't giving an average US income for any year, or the median income for Afghanistan...) then, by also assuming he has already been working on his current project for an entire year (not stated - or even hinted at in the article) - he would have received a total of 22 years worth of income (at the average rate) from just those two 'inventions', or close to $900,000 if working in the US at the same ratio.
His purpose in inventing may not have been the money, but he has certainly done well for himself money-wise from his inventions.
I don't know what the patent laws are in Afghanistan, but it might very well be that he CAN'T patent his ideas - either Afghanistan must abide by other countries patent laws and he is barred by prior art, or possibly he can not afford the legal fees/bribes necessary, or other reasons particular to the area or political situation.
From what I read of the article (shocking, in'it?)
HERETIC!! Next thing ya know, people will have to READ the articles before posting...SLASHDOT IS DOOMED! DOOMED, I TELL YA!
More seriously, you should have read the entire article. It is pointed out that many of his 'inventions' are neither new ideas nor patentable - although I see it as an indication of an active mind that he 'invented' things to fill an observed void, and an active mind is good.
In addition, note that the article says he is supported by his grown children, as well as living rent free and receiving $200/month while working on his 'solar car'. Not sure what the average income in his area is, but I would think he is making out like a sheik. Forbes and others put the average ANNUAL income at about $180 - $200 for Afghanistan as a whole ( is your friend)
For illustration purposes, the last census showed that the MEDIAN (not the same as average) income in the US was $42,228. In the US, he would have to be making over $500,000 per year to have the same relative pay - and that is ONLY for working on the solar powered car.
Another example. At 17 he built a radio. Actually he built (from the article) "more than a thousand" radios and sold them for "less than two dollars a piece." That means he received right at 10 years average income FROM THAT ONE 'INVENTION'. At age 17.
At that same ratio, in the US a 17 YO would have to create an invention that produced an income of over $450,000 to be equivalent.
As far as patents, it may not be possible - again, from the article "I have seen some of his inventions, like this car," said Edrish, a lecturer in the electronics department of Kabul University. "They are new for Afghans, but these things have already been invented elsewhere in the world." - and he may even be infringing others patents if other patent holders wanted to force the issue (and if the patents are valid in Afghanistan...)
"Time is Money" (time = money) "Knowledge is Power" (knowledge = power) and power = work / time
so power = work / money
Therefore knowledge = work / time or equivilantly knowledge = work / money and therefore money = work / knowledge As knowledge approches zero, money goes to infinity reguardless of the quantity of work.
So we have proven that:
1) The more you know, the more you work and the less time you have to accomplish it. 1a) The more you know, the more you work and the less you get paid.
2) The less you know, the more money you make - and those who know nothing make the most money. 2a) Those paid the most, know the least.
Slight correction. I stated that private schooling is not an option FOR EVERONE - and specified several catagories who might have a dificult time managing to pay for private schooling, or be able to provide food as well as home schooling.
If you do not have the required money, private school is not an option. Private schools are NOT REQUIRED to accept students who can not pay the tuition.
I also stated that, if public schools are not providing benefit to me, I should not be FORCED to pay for their disfunctional continuation through school tax assessments.
You mentioned a 'social contract theory', and I asked what is the quid pro quo, what am I getting for my school tax dollar when the public schools are NOT routinely turning out educated graduates?
YOU said that home schooling and private schools are always options. I said that those are NOT always an option that can be chosen. In addition, the parents of children who use private schools and home schooling ARE ALSO REQUIRED TO PAY TAXES THAT SUPPORT PUBLIC SCHOOLS. They are getting hit twice, once for an option they have decided does not meet their needs. Not very equitable.
Another correction. IN MY OPINION, many of the ills of public education resolves back to trying to do too much - whether through good intentions or through imposed requirements. Of course there is not enough money to do everything! But maybe public schools should not be trying to do 'everything' - maybe they should be concentrating on eduating their students, and providing value for hte tax dollars they are sucking up.
Now if only parents should pay for schooling, then they might as well opt for private, but regardless, all the money problems of public schools now will be further exacerbated.
Exactly. If those who used the system were required to pay the bill for using the system, then they would, hopefully, shop for the best value - and public education would have to struggle to attain standards they are not currently able to meet. Public schools would lose head count by an alarming amount, until or unless they were able to provide either a superior education, or a cheaper price - or both! - when compared to private schooling.
Agreed, when a customer purchases the cheapest product, then wants the top-of-the-line result, there is a problem.
So let them know that you can offer a top-notch job, guaranteed to satisfy for $$$$$, a mid-level job that will probably do what they want (but maybe not) for $$$, and a low-level 'minimum wage earner running the copy machine' job for $.
Touch up your originals? Included in $$$$$ package, extra charge in $$$ package, not available in $ package.
Design work? $$ minimum, then by the hour. "You want lots of stuff done? Fine by me, you are paying by the hour, you can have as much as you can afford!"
I used to help in a sign shop (started as 'minimum wage copy machine boy', graduated to bigger and better - then left)- been there, done that! People wanting steak product on a hamburger budget. The owner implemented the above and we lost a few accounts that were taking most of our time and not paying very well, we gained some accounts that we now had time for, and the shop made more profit AFTER the change.
I guess my point is that the customer will take as much as they can get away with - it is up to the seller to set limits - or set prices on services 'over and above' normal services and let the customer decide if they are willing to pay the increased fees required for the increased levels of performance.
Quote: "The most significant changes to Kansas sales tax law are the sourcing rules. Retailers must use destination-based sourcing rules to correctly identify the local sales tax to charge on a retail sales transaction. Under the destination-based sourcing rules, sales generally are sourced to the location where the purchaser receives the item sold. Retailers who ship or deliver sold items to their customers' locations will be required to collect the local sales tax in effect where delivery is made." [emphasis added]
So the correct tax is the local store tax - unless the item is delivered, in which case it is the tax in effect at the delivery location. I would assume most of BB and CC sales are NOT delivered, but things like big screen TVs and larger appliances would be - so the store may reguire the telephone number to know the tax rate required to be collected.
Reconciling those two statements is not required. They are two stand alone statements and do not require reconciliation, unless you are trolling, in which case I am wasting my time.
You say that home schooling and private schooling are "always" options to public schooling.
My first quoted line in your post states that that is not the case and mentions two cases where it is NOT an option which means public school is the only option in those cases. I am directly refuting your statement that "Home schooling and and private schooling are always options."
The second question you quoted from my post is clearcut and agan stands alone, although in the context of the posting you were replying to, it makes even more sense. Their contention is that public schooling is not providing the education your "social contract theory" says I am to get for my tax dollars.
In addition, if "home schooling and private schooling are always options" then public school is neither a requirement nor a necessity, so WHY AM I BEING REQUIRED TO PAY FOR IT?
Your "social contract theory" says that everyone supports an infrastructure that benefits everyone. For example, the fire department or 911 operators. How does public school benefit the homeschooling parent? How does overcrowded classrooms, dumbed down curicula, inflated grading, and the other well publicised ills of public schools benefit me, a person with no children? It is not benefiting the children, how could it possibly be benefiting me?
Requiring people who do not have children, homeschooling parents, and those who have chosen to pay for private schooling to pay taxes for public school as well reminds me of the custom of bulling the family of the executed prisoner for the bullet used by the firing squad.
Moderators on crack. What is insightful about this posting?
Platitudes and BS do not equate to insight.
Single parents and parents struggling to make ends meet do NOT have home schooling or private schooling as options. Who was it that, when told the peasants had no bread said "Let them eat cake!"* Their statement, like yours, reveals a total lack of insight, understanding, or empathy for others. And it is exactly people with no understanding, insight, or empathy that pass laws and picket the school board to 'dumb down' the curriculum and 'let no child fall behind', require expensive special teachers and accommodations for 'mainstreamed' kids, and require so much oversight that the administrators outnumber the teachers.
Taxes SPECIFIED ON THE BALLOT to support the school system BETTER NOT PAY FOR MORE THAN JUST SCHOOLS! Why should I, as a single person with no children, be required to pay taxes to support schools I do not use? Yet I have no choice in paying the taxes.
As a society you DO NOT have any right to tell me (or anyone) how to raise children. What is it that you are thinking gives you that right? Is it a law, or is it somewhere in the Constitution? I am not familiar with any substantiation to your statement.
That quote about it taking a village to raise a child was nonsense and BS when it was first uttered, and remains nonsense and BS now. In fact you must agree as you then go on to say that "If parents backed up schools, then we would have better kids in society. " So you are claiming that it is the parents that are doing the raising, not the village.
* Marie Antoinette. Lost her head in the French Revolution.
The answer is that he wants everyone to have a choice, and even though he knows what the answer is, he wants to give everyone a fair chance to make a decision.
YOU SAID God wants everyone to have " a... chance to make a decision."
YOU SAID abortion is wrong, and people should not BE ALLOWED TO MAKE THAT DECISION.
Please reconcile the two, as I have tried and can't - unless I assume you are evil and WANT to interfere with what you understand is the intention of God.
Note that I am NOT saying you are evil (I don't know you and probably will never meet you), but that that is the only way I can reconcile the two positions you seem to have taken.
I believe truth is objective, and belief is subjective.
I believe that the ratio of the radius of a circle and the circumference of that same circle is a multiple of a number that can be approximated by 3.1415926... and is called pi.
I don't believe that it is an objective truth that murder is wrong. I do agree that it is a subjective belief that I subscribe to.
As this truth is subjective to me, I have no right to impose it on others. However if this truth is imposed on the world by by the God that created the world, THEN I HAVE NO NEED TO IMPOSE IT ON OTHERS (THAT WAS ALREADY DONE BY GOD). If I (or you) feel a need to impose this 'truth' on others then it was NOT imposed on them by GOD.
Either this truth was imposed by GOD or by you. What I am seeing is imposed by you, but claimed to be from God. A claim with no backing I can verify.
You say that this comes from the Bible ("...because it is the primary source of that truth") and that the Bible has been checked out by a wide variety of 'experts' and has passed all their tests.
There is comtemporary literature (contemporary papers, inks, printing methods, etc.,) that use actual locations and structures, histories, and science (as currently known) that are not intended to ever be taken as true. I.e., fiction. BUT IN A THOUSAND YEARS, those works of fiction would meet and pass every test you have claimed for the Bible. That does not make their stories true, nor does passing the tests of the'experts' make the Bible stories true. It does point out accuracies IN SOME ASSPECTS, but not accuracy in ALL aspects. Large difference.
In addition, your belief in the truth of the Bible is not a "foundation of real evidence," it is a foundation of sand, solely built up from your belief.
One point I hope to be making is that your belief CAN NOT be a guidepost for my actions, only for your own.
Back to abortion. You are correct that my beliefs in property rights affects others, but only in how it affects my actions, not in how I force others to act.
Becasue I don't download illegal copies of software, my ISP does not get extra payments for my using excessive bandwidth. I may chose not to associate with others that do download or trade illegal copies of music or software. BUT MY BELIEFS ARE AFFECTING OTHERS ONLY THROUGH IMPOSING THEM ON MYSELF.
"I oppose abortion because it has an effect on someoe I consider to be a person." Fine. Admirable if you act based on those beliefs - but that means YOU can chose FOR YOU to not have an abortion, or YOU can chose FOR YOU to not associate with people who chose to have an abortion, NOT that you can chose FOR OTHERS.
"Using your own argument, how can a mother have the right to make a decision that imposes her beliefs on her unborn child."
People impose their wills on their own body parts quite often. I force my fingers to strike certain keys. I impose my will on my feet when I walk down to the kitchen. I impose my will on my body when I chose to eat certain foods and not others. People impose their will on their body when they take diabetic medications, or blood pressure medications, or any number of other medications. People impose their will on their own bodies when they have surgery - elective surgery, required surgery, ANY surgery - INCLUDING ABORTION.
Back to your question, the mother is not imposeing her beliefs on an unborn child. She is imposing her will on her own body. If the ability to impose her will on her own body is removed, then women become slaves and baby factories only - not people with FREE WILL which I understand is something given to people by GOD.
Interesting story about the aborigines. Looks to me like it illustrates _my_ point.
FOR THEIR OWN GOOD they must be FORCED to not drink alcohol, so legislation is passed. During the 70s the legislation is repealed - they are allowed to make their own decisions based on their own beliefs and needs. THEY ARE NOW CREATIN
1) Read the post. 2) UNDERSTAND the post 3) Reply if wanted.
Congratulations, grasshopper, you have mastered 1 and 3. More work is needed, however, on number 2 before leaving the temple...
Paraphrasing the parent in my own words and based on my understanding of what was posted:
IF Sony is using ATRAC3 as an anti-piracy measure, THEN why are other formats converted when loaded - i.e., pirated MP3s are converted to ATRAC3.
IF Sony is NOT using ATRAC3 as an anti-piracy measure, THEN why are other, more popular formats not supported.
A better counter to the parent post would be to point out that ATRAC3 is NOT being used as an anti-piracy measure, but as a highly compressive format that allows the 20G harddrive device to store 13,000 songs. The 'anti-piracy' (DRM) aspect is there and gets the Sony Music devision off the hardware divisions' ass...
IF ATRAC was being used as an anti-piracy measure, you would not be able to convert potentially pirated MP3s when transfering.
If this 20G, $400 harddrive device stored only as much as the 20G, $399 iPod, then Sony marketing has no hook to hang their hype on. By using the higher compression, the marketing boys can claim the same (or more) storage than the $499 40G iPod for 'ONLY $399!! But wait, order in the next 30 minutes and we will throw in this AMAZING Ginsu knife ABSOLUTELY FREE!'
Therefore, the reason why other popular formats are not supported is a marketing decision. IMHO a bad decision, but still a decision that is theirs to make.
1) You seem to be implying - by making two statements with only one difference - that it is possible to ACCIDENTALLY push a woman WITH MALICE toward the fetus. Accidentally removes the malice aspect, malice removes the accidental aspect.
Reminds me of the parrot with a string tied to each leg. When the petshop owner was asked why, he told the shopper to pull one string. The customer did, and the parrot spouted a bibblical verse. "Amazing!" said the customer and pulled the other string. The parrot spewed a different bibblical verse. "Astounding!" said the customer, "but what happens when I pull both strings?" The parrot said "Idiot, I would fall on my butt!"
I think you may have just fallen on your butt...
2) You wrote "As a Christian I believe (with biblical evidence)...
I think you are running into circular reasoning.
You are claiming to be a Christian - which means beliving the Bible is the 'Word of God' and true beyond dispute, then using the Bible to support your belief in something else. Would a Muslem believer accept the biblical evidence, or a Hindu or a Buddist?
I am not saying you are wrong, I am saying you have not - and can not - proved your position. Likewise, I (nor anyone else) can not disprove your statement - because your statement only applies to you. You are saying you believe something because you believe it with no foundation in fact or real world evidence. That is fine, you are allowed to believe anything you way want to believe. Unfortunately, opposing abortion is not confining your actions to yourself based on your beliefs, it is imposing your beliefs on others. THAT I have a problem with.
Just as you are free to believe that there is a God that people were created in the image of, I should be free to believe in reincarnation, Karma, evolution, or whatever the Scientologists believe. Equally, Creationists, Scientologists, Muslems, and all others should allow you to believe as you wish. Contrawise, if you think others should be forced to do things because you think they should, or because your beliefs say they should, then, through the same laws, reasoning, etc., others should be allowed to FORCE you to think as they do and do things as they think you should because of their beliefs or thoughts. If it is OK for you (or me, or President Bush, or...) then it must also be OK for OBL or S.Hussain.
By using the Bible as your source and evidence, you lose your point - unless you are trying to say (you DIDN'T say it, but for your argument to be true you would have to assert it to be true) that your argument applies ONLY those who see the Bible (and only the version you use) as the 'one, true word of God' - in which case opposing abortion FOR CHRISTIANS would possibly make sense - but then Christians would not want abortions if they all believed as you do.
I can only think that either all Christians DON'T think as you do, in which case your issue is with them, or you are advocating imposing your beliefs on non-Christians THAT DON'T WANT THEM.
Amazing, don't you agree, that "THE WORD OF GOD" comes in so many different, conflicting versions, each with adherants willing to KILL others over the differences?
My biggest problem with ALL religions is that they all claim to originate from the same source - GOD - but they are all different and all claim to be correct which is mutually inconsistant and logically not possible.
Assuming for the moment that one of the many IS correct, how would I tell? Because NOT ONE RELIGION CLAIMS TO BE FALSE (even though almost all of them claim THE OTHERS are false) I can't eliminate any of them from contention for the 'One, True Religion" - or, as the one commonality of all the reigions is that they claim the others are false, maybe I should go with that common theme and say that all are false?
People who make a living from religion are parasites. Just like spammers, they present their 'message' to a great many in hopes that a few will buy their hooey. They get gratification either from money or power given to them by the 'belivers'. Of course, to keep their belivers, they have to offer something everyone else doesn't - which makes their version different than others. Of course, their MODIFIED version is the ONE TRUE version, just ask them.
Sorry, this is one of my buttons - along with stupidity, which this issue also pushes...
The correct name of the act is "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001"
USA PATRIOT is an acronym and should be all caps.
Using [sic] means you are aware that this is not used correctly, but are perpetuating the original error as found.
pedantic mode=OFF
You used it correctly, but I am confused what original error you are quoting.
Not finding it, thought I would ask.:)
As far as the acronym goes, I think the letters should be all squinched together as well - USAPATRIOT ACT, but how would you pronounce that? 'you sap at riot'?
Are you refering to the/. article from yesterday where "'Delta, Continental, America West, JetBlue and Frontier Airlines secretly turned over sensitive passenger data to Transportation Security Administration contractors in the spring and summer of 2002, according to the sworn statement of acting TSA chief David Stone. In addion, two of the four largest airline reservation centers, Galileo International and Sabre, also gave sensitive passenger information, including home phone numbers, credit card numbers and health data, without disclosing the transfers to travelers or asking their permission.'" ?
So we have home phone numbers, credit card numbers, and health data (WTF?) illegally being given out without permission - but thank $DEITY they keep our AOL screennames private!
PS Got the sarcasm, thought it was massively funny. No mod points, so I responded.
In an Employment-at-will state you are employed "at the whim of the employer", and only as long as the employer wants you to be employed. Without a contract, the employer can, without any stated reason, tell you you are no longer employed and you have no recourse.
From this (pdf) article in the "Monthly Labor Review" written by Charles J. Muhl, Esq. "In legal terms, though, since the last half of the 19th century, employment in each of the United States has been "at will," or terminable by either the employer or employee for any reason whatsoever. The employment-at-will doctrine avows that, when an employee does not have a written employment contract and the term of employment is of indefinite duration, the employer can terminate the employee for good cause, bad cause, or not cause at all"
In the footnotes, it is noted that "This article does not address statutory exceptions to employment at will. Many such exceptions have been enacted at both the Federal and State level." examples given are federal laws against discrimination, and some states laws against termination for 'whistleblowing'.
Why are we required to pick from only two evils in the first place? If the best the two parties can come up with is a moron and a stooge, why is our only choice between picking a moron or picking a stooge?
Interesting that neither party puts as their first priority "can do the BEST job of being President" (or even "CAN DO THE JOB of being President"), as the parties assume they will be able to stage manage the actions of their puppet in the Oval Office.
I think I agree with you, but your presentation definitely could be better...
It's pretty dangerous to think that Bush is stupid.
I agree that underestimating a man with his power is dangerous, but only because he HAS that power, not because he knows how to use it. A thug in an alley with a gun will get my wallet, not because he is smart enought to use the gun, but because he MIGHT BE STUPID ENOUGH to use the gun. Stupid people with power are far more dangerous - and unpredictable - than smart (should be 'knowledgeable', I think) people in the same position.
Bush has not shown himself to be particulary smart or knowledgeable.
His administration has been ferociously effective at implementing their policies.
Yes, they have. 1) Those policies may not have been best for the nation, or even legal - see the U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T act, the handling of the prisoners in Cuba, the T.I.A. plans, the "terrorist futures", the Medicare changes, etc. Also note that when some of their agendas have been made public they were then scrapped due to public outcry - see PATRIOT II, T.I.A., etc - even though some of those same policies were then tacked onto other bills in an effort to impliment them even though they were known to be unwanted by the people the lawmakers are supposed to represent.
And 2) The ability to surround yourself by people willing to use and/or abuse their power to further their OWN goals (Ashcroft springs to mind) is not a mark of a smart man, a smart man would appoint the best people for the job, not 'cronies' and would give them working room to accomplish their job, but would restrain over-zealousness. That is part of the job of President, a part that either Bush is not doing, or the over-reaching and abuse of position is what he WANTS done - and they are getting the job done (getting into tinfoil hat territory here).
If he's stupid, I shudder to think what a smart president espousing the same policies might do.
I would hope (silly me) that a smart president would not espouse the same policies, as s/he would see the legality and constitutionality (as well as the PR) issues and would want to avoid them for the avoidance of the havoc it would cause the nation and the deletrious effect on their possibility for re-election.
On the other hand, I would also hope that if unpopular action was required, a smart president would see the need and put the needs of the nation before personal wants and take the required actions no matter the effect on their chances for re-election.
Me, I don't think he's stupid at all.
Me, I think either he IS stupid (actually, not smart enough for the job - stupid would not be a desirable trait in even a puppet president, and would not have allowed survival of the election process) or a VERY GOOD actor playing stupid - and I don't think he is that good of an actor!
Either he is not smart enough for the job, or he is playing the nation for fools and getting away with it - and thus should not have the job. Either way, getting him out of office would be a SMART thing to do...
Paraphrasing the combatants as I understand their positions:
TSG wanted this case in state court "because we clearly own the copyrights - there is no copyright question involved, only a contract violation."
Judge Kimball said that TSG had not shown that they "clearly" own the copyrights. Therefore, there is a copyright question so the case is in the proper court and remains in federal court. Motion to remand DENIED.
Novell said that, because the case is in the proper court to make decisions on the case, the case should be thrown out because TSG CLEARLY didn't own the copyrights, and so the "make a false statement" part of the Slander of Title case was not satisfied.
Judge Kimball said that just as the evidence does not support TSGs claim of "clearly" owning the copyrights, it also does not "clearly" support a claim that they DON'T own them - that claim would have to be clarified in court - so the motion to dismiss on the "false statement" is DENIED.
Novell also claimed that TSG failed in another important point in that they did not specify "special damages" correctly, and the case should be thrown out.
Judge Kimball said Novell is correct, TSG did not meet the requirements of specifying special damages when filing a Slander of Title suit, and the Motion to dismiss is GRANTED. HOWEVER, TSG has 30 days to amend their filing to include "special damages" properly.
Until or unless TSG files proper changes, this case is DISMISSED.
Dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE - i.e., TSG can refile this same suit again against the same people - but the judge has specified that their claim that they purchased copyrights from Novell is legally in doubt and would have to be ruled on after hearing more evidence or after a jury trial. He has also, in my opinion, let them know that they have little in the way of a case based on what they brought to his court...
Slashdot Mirror
Correct.
Fibrillation is a random, chaotic electrical firing of the heart muscles - and no coordinated contraction or blood pumping happens.
Defibrillators sends an electrical impulse through the heart TO STOP IT ENTIRELY by causing the cells to fire, then enter an absolutly refractory period and allow the normal pacemaking cells (in the AV node, before the Bundle of His) which should recover first to try to take over paceing the heart. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't.
Defibrillators are also used in cardioversion, where a faster than normal heart beat is treated to slow it down. Sometimes Adenosine is used instead. A bolus of Adenosine is given IV. It is quite interesting to watch a patients' face when their heart stops from the medication, then restarts a second or two later...
I can't gainsay your numbers, but want to know WHY you "get more energy per square meter from the sun on the equator than you do in, say, Portland Oregon..."
.0043% difference would not have had that much impact.
If it is because of the angle of incidence due to the curvature of the earth, then I call bullshit. How hard can it be to angle the solar panel so that it is perpendicular to the sun?
If it is because of the additional atmosphere it must travel through, or the additional distance it travels from the sun, then what does the sqrt(2) come from? I would have thought the amount of radiation would fall off as the distance from the sun increased, but the distance would not be much more than 4000 miles difference from the sun, and after the 93,000,000 miles already traveled, the
Not disputing your numbers, just wanting to know what they mean - I think I can learn something here.
2000 pound car. Approx 144 square inches of contact for all 4 tires.
2000 pounds/144 square inches gives slightly under 14 pounds per square inch of pressure - only slightly LESS than atmospheric pressure at sea level (14.7 pounds per square inch).
All the slight shifts due to engine placement or driver or no driver isn't going to change this much. I.e., assumming the driver weighed almost 900 pounds. Then the 2000 pound car will weigh almost 2900 pounds including the driver. The pressure goes all the way up to a staggering 20 pounds per square inch.
Point being, the flexibility of the tires allows the pressure to be distributed more evenly. Another poster noted that a 500 pound anvil on your foot would hurt more than a car, and they are correct - because the anvil is not flexible and the weight concentrates in a smaller contact area, so there is a higher pound/sq. in. on parts of your foot.
I had my foot run over by a Chrysler Newport (land barge) - no idea of how much it weighed, but would guess 2000 as a MINIMUM. It was the drivers front tire and it only ran over the front half of the front part of my foot. They were moving slowly, but I was not sure I had been run over until I checked the tire markes across the toe of the shoe. Did not hurt me or the shoes.
1) According to the article, "many" of his inventions are new to him or his area, BUT NOT to other areas.
...
...) then, by also assuming he has already been working on his current project for an entire year (not stated - or even hinted at in the article) - he would have received a total of 22 years worth of income (at the average rate) from just those two 'inventions', or close to $900,000 if working in the US at the same ratio.
He is widely admired among the academic community, although some point out that many of his inventions are not original
"I have seen some of his inventions, like this car," said Edrish, a lecturer in the electronics department of Kabul University. "They are new for Afghans, but these things have already been invented elsewhere in the world."
2) According to the article, he made more than the average citizen of Afghanistan CURRENTLY makes in TEN YEARS from his radio 'invention' when he was 17 (at 62 now, that makes it 45 years ago - circa 1959).
He made more than a thousand of the radios which were sold at less than two US dollars a piece.
According to several sources, the CURRENT average income in Afghanistan is between $180 and $200 PER YEAR.
According to the article, he is CURRENTLY living rent free and receiving $200 PER MONTH (average ANNUAL income for Afghanistan) while working on his current project - and his FAMILY is being supported by his four grown sons.
I agree that he is not making MASSIVE amounts of money - either by US standards or even by Afghanistan standards, but he sure doesn't seem to be hurting, either.
According to the US Census Bureau,the median (NOT average - two different numbers) income in the US was $42,228 as of the last census. If we assume the median is exactly the same as the average (they are not, not necessarily even close, but it gives us a number to throw around, and Google isn't giving an average US income for any year, or the median income for Afghanistan
His purpose in inventing may not have been the money, but he has certainly done well for himself money-wise from his inventions.
I don't know what the patent laws are in Afghanistan, but it might very well be that he CAN'T patent his ideas - either Afghanistan must abide by other countries patent laws and he is barred by prior art, or possibly he can not afford the legal fees/bribes necessary, or other reasons particular to the area or political situation.
I CAN NOT believe no one is making the obvious MATRIX jokes/comments here...
From what I read of the article (shocking, in'it?)
HERETIC!! Next thing ya know, people will have to READ the articles before posting...SLASHDOT IS DOOMED! DOOMED, I TELL YA!
More seriously, you should have read the entire article. It is pointed out that many of his 'inventions' are neither new ideas nor patentable - although I see it as an indication of an active mind that he 'invented' things to fill an observed void, and an active mind is good.
In addition, note that the article says he is supported by his grown children, as well as living rent free and receiving $200/month while working on his 'solar car'. Not sure what the average income in his area is, but I would think he is making out like a sheik. Forbes and others put the average ANNUAL income at about $180 - $200 for Afghanistan as a whole ( is your friend)
For illustration purposes, the last census showed that the MEDIAN (not the same as average) income in the US was $42,228. In the US, he would have to be making over $500,000 per year to have the same relative pay - and that is ONLY for working on the solar powered car.
Another example. At 17 he built a radio. Actually he built (from the article) "more than a thousand" radios and sold them for "less than two dollars a piece." That means he received right at 10 years average income FROM THAT ONE 'INVENTION'. At age 17.
At that same ratio, in the US a 17 YO would have to create an invention that produced an income of over $450,000 to be equivalent.
As far as patents, it may not be possible - again, from the article "I have seen some of his inventions, like this car," said Edrish, a lecturer in the electronics department of Kabul University. "They are new for Afghans, but these things have already been invented elsewhere in the world." - and he may even be infringing others patents if other patent holders wanted to force the issue (and if the patents are valid in Afghanistan...)
I thought the article said he was "semi-literate."
Don't we have enough editors already?
"Time is Money" (time = money)
"Knowledge is Power" (knowledge = power)
and power = work / time
so power = work / money
Therefore knowledge = work / time
or equivilantly knowledge = work / money
and therefore money = work / knowledge
As knowledge approches zero, money goes to infinity reguardless of the quantity of work.
So we have proven that:
1) The more you know, the more you work and the less time you have to accomplish it.
1a) The more you know, the more you work and the less you get paid.
2) The less you know, the more money you make - and those who know nothing make the most money.
2a) Those paid the most, know the least.
3) The less you know, the less you have to work.
(not original)
And I call "Humor impaired."
Turn on your sarcasm detector. This is Slashdot, after all...
Hey! My sarcasm detector just went off again!
Slight correction. I stated that private schooling is not an option FOR EVERONE - and specified several catagories who might have a dificult time managing to pay for private schooling, or be able to provide food as well as home schooling.
If you do not have the required money, private school is not an option. Private schools are NOT REQUIRED to accept students who can not pay the tuition.
I also stated that, if public schools are not providing benefit to me, I should not be FORCED to pay for their disfunctional continuation through school tax assessments.
You mentioned a 'social contract theory', and I asked what is the quid pro quo, what am I getting for my school tax dollar when the public schools are NOT routinely turning out educated graduates?
YOU said that home schooling and private schools are always options. I said that those are NOT always an option that can be chosen. In addition, the parents of children who use private schools and home schooling ARE ALSO REQUIRED TO PAY TAXES THAT SUPPORT PUBLIC SCHOOLS. They are getting hit twice, once for an option they have decided does not meet their needs. Not very equitable.
Another correction. IN MY OPINION, many of the ills of public education resolves back to trying to do too much - whether through good intentions or through imposed requirements. Of course there is not enough money to do everything! But maybe public schools should not be trying to do 'everything' - maybe they should be concentrating on eduating their students, and providing value for hte tax dollars they are sucking up.
Now if only parents should pay for schooling, then they might as well opt for private, but regardless, all the money problems of public schools now will be further exacerbated.
Exactly. If those who used the system were required to pay the bill for using the system, then they would, hopefully, shop for the best value - and public education would have to struggle to attain standards they are not currently able to meet. Public schools would lose head count by an alarming amount, until or unless they were able to provide either a superior education, or a cheaper price - or both! - when compared to private schooling.
I suspose that you were never a child.
Seems I have been feeding the trolls.
Agreed, when a customer purchases the cheapest product, then wants the top-of-the-line result, there is a problem.
So let them know that you can offer a top-notch job, guaranteed to satisfy for $$$$$, a mid-level job that will probably do what they want (but maybe not) for $$$, and a low-level 'minimum wage earner running the copy machine' job for $.
Touch up your originals? Included in $$$$$ package, extra charge in $$$ package, not available in $ package.
Design work? $$ minimum, then by the hour. "You want lots of stuff done? Fine by me, you are paying by the hour, you can have as much as you can afford!"
I used to help in a sign shop (started as 'minimum wage copy machine boy', graduated to bigger and better - then left)- been there, done that! People wanting steak product on a hamburger budget. The owner implemented the above and we lost a few accounts that were taking most of our time and not paying very well, we gained some accounts that we now had time for, and the shop made more profit AFTER the change.
I guess my point is that the customer will take as much as they can get away with - it is up to the seller to set limits - or set prices on services 'over and above' normal services and let the customer decide if they are willing to pay the increased fees required for the increased levels of performance.
Sometimes it is.
Link
Quote: "The most significant changes to Kansas sales tax law are the sourcing rules. Retailers must use destination-based sourcing rules to correctly identify the local sales tax to charge on a retail sales transaction. Under the destination-based sourcing rules, sales generally are sourced to the location where the purchaser receives the item sold. Retailers who ship or deliver sold items to their customers' locations will be required to collect the local sales tax in effect where delivery is made."
[emphasis added]
So the correct tax is the local store tax - unless the item is delivered, in which case it is the tax in effect at the delivery location. I would assume most of BB and CC sales are NOT delivered, but things like big screen TVs and larger appliances would be - so the store may reguire the telephone number to know the tax rate required to be collected.
Not a troll.
Reconciling those two statements is not required. They are two stand alone statements and do not require reconciliation, unless you are trolling, in which case I am wasting my time.
You say that home schooling and private schooling are "always" options to public schooling.
My first quoted line in your post states that that is not the case and mentions two cases where it is NOT an option which means public school is the only option in those cases. I am directly refuting your statement that "Home schooling and and private schooling are always options."
The second question you quoted from my post is clearcut and agan stands alone, although in the context of the posting you were replying to, it makes even more sense. Their contention is that public schooling is not providing the education your "social contract theory" says I am to get for my tax dollars.
In addition, if "home schooling and private schooling are always options" then public school is neither a requirement nor a necessity, so WHY AM I BEING REQUIRED TO PAY FOR IT?
Your "social contract theory" says that everyone supports an infrastructure that benefits everyone. For example, the fire department or 911 operators. How does public school benefit the homeschooling parent? How does overcrowded classrooms, dumbed down curicula, inflated grading, and the other well publicised ills of public schools benefit me, a person with no children? It is not benefiting the children, how could it possibly be benefiting me?
Requiring people who do not have children, homeschooling parents, and those who have chosen to pay for private schooling to pay taxes for public school as well reminds me of the custom of bulling the family of the executed prisoner for the bullet used by the firing squad.
Such blatant stupidity requires comment.
Moderators on crack. What is insightful about this posting?
Platitudes and BS do not equate to insight.
Single parents and parents struggling to make ends meet do NOT have home schooling or private schooling as options. Who was it that, when told the peasants had no bread said "Let them eat cake!"* Their statement, like yours, reveals a total lack of insight, understanding, or empathy for others. And it is exactly people with no understanding, insight, or empathy that pass laws and picket the school board to 'dumb down' the curriculum and 'let no child fall behind', require expensive special teachers and accommodations for 'mainstreamed' kids, and require so much oversight that the administrators outnumber the teachers.
Taxes SPECIFIED ON THE BALLOT to support the school system BETTER NOT PAY FOR MORE THAN JUST SCHOOLS! Why should I, as a single person with no children, be required to pay taxes to support schools I do not use? Yet I have no choice in paying the taxes.
As a society you DO NOT have any right to tell me (or anyone) how to raise children. What is it that you are thinking gives you that right? Is it a law, or is it somewhere in the Constitution? I am not familiar with any substantiation to your statement.
That quote about it taking a village to raise a child was nonsense and BS when it was first uttered, and remains nonsense and BS now. In fact you must agree as you then go on to say that "If parents backed up schools, then we would have better kids in society. " So you are claiming that it is the parents that are doing the raising, not the village.
* Marie Antoinette. Lost her head in the French Revolution.
The answer is that he wants everyone to have a choice, and even though he knows what the answer is, he wants to give everyone a fair chance to make a decision.
... chance to make a decision."
YOU SAID God wants everyone to have " a
YOU SAID abortion is wrong, and people should not BE ALLOWED TO MAKE THAT DECISION.
Please reconcile the two, as I have tried and can't - unless I assume you are evil and WANT to interfere with what you understand is the intention of God.
Note that I am NOT saying you are evil (I don't know you and probably will never meet you), but that that is the only way I can reconcile the two positions you seem to have taken.
You almost got it, but you missed.
I believe truth is objective, and belief is subjective.
I believe that the ratio of the radius of a circle and the circumference of that same circle is a multiple of a number that can be approximated by 3.1415926... and is called pi.
I don't believe that it is an objective truth that murder is wrong. I do agree that it is a subjective belief that I subscribe to.
As this truth is subjective to me, I have no right to impose it on others. However if this truth is imposed on the world by by the God that created the world, THEN I HAVE NO NEED TO IMPOSE IT ON OTHERS (THAT WAS ALREADY DONE BY GOD). If I (or you) feel a need to impose this 'truth' on others then it was NOT imposed on them by GOD.
Either this truth was imposed by GOD or by you. What I am seeing is imposed by you, but claimed to be from God. A claim with no backing I can verify.
You say that this comes from the Bible ("...because it is the primary source of that truth") and that the Bible has been checked out by a wide variety of 'experts' and has passed all their tests.
There is comtemporary literature (contemporary papers, inks, printing methods, etc.,) that use actual locations and structures, histories, and science (as currently known) that are not intended to ever be taken as true. I.e., fiction. BUT IN A THOUSAND YEARS, those works of fiction would meet and pass every test you have claimed for the Bible. That does not make their stories true, nor does passing the tests of the'experts' make the Bible stories true. It does point out accuracies IN SOME ASSPECTS, but not accuracy in ALL aspects. Large difference.
In addition, your belief in the truth of the Bible is not a "foundation of real evidence," it is a foundation of sand, solely built up from your belief.
One point I hope to be making is that your belief CAN NOT be a guidepost for my actions, only for your own.
Back to abortion. You are correct that my beliefs in property rights affects others, but only in how it affects my actions, not in how I force others to act.
Becasue I don't download illegal copies of software, my ISP does not get extra payments for my using excessive bandwidth. I may chose not to associate with others that do download or trade illegal copies of music or software. BUT MY BELIEFS ARE AFFECTING OTHERS ONLY THROUGH IMPOSING THEM ON MYSELF.
"I oppose abortion because it has an effect on someoe I consider to be a person." Fine. Admirable if you act based on those beliefs - but that means YOU can chose FOR YOU to not have an abortion, or YOU can chose FOR YOU to not associate with people who chose to have an abortion, NOT that you can chose FOR OTHERS.
"Using your own argument, how can a mother have the right to make a decision that imposes her beliefs on her unborn child."
People impose their wills on their own body parts quite often. I force my fingers to strike certain keys. I impose my will on my feet when I walk down to the kitchen. I impose my will on my body when I chose to eat certain foods and not others. People impose their will on their body when they take diabetic medications, or blood pressure medications, or any number of other medications. People impose their will on their own bodies when they have surgery - elective surgery, required surgery, ANY surgery - INCLUDING ABORTION.
Back to your question, the mother is not imposeing her beliefs on an unborn child. She is imposing her will on her own body. If the ability to impose her will on her own body is removed, then women become slaves and baby factories only - not people with FREE WILL which I understand is something given to people by GOD.
Interesting story about the aborigines. Looks to me like it illustrates _my_ point.
FOR THEIR OWN GOOD they must be FORCED to not drink alcohol, so legislation is passed. During the 70s the legislation is repealed - they are allowed to make their own decisions based on their own beliefs and needs. THEY ARE NOW CREATIN
1) Read the post.
...
2) UNDERSTAND the post
3) Reply if wanted.
Congratulations, grasshopper, you have mastered 1 and 3. More work is needed, however, on number 2 before leaving the temple
Paraphrasing the parent in my own words and based on my understanding of what was posted:
IF Sony is using ATRAC3 as an anti-piracy measure, THEN why are other formats converted when loaded - i.e., pirated MP3s are converted to ATRAC3.
IF Sony is NOT using ATRAC3 as an anti-piracy measure, THEN why are other, more popular formats not supported.
A better counter to the parent post would be to point out that ATRAC3 is NOT being used as an anti-piracy measure, but as a highly compressive format that allows the 20G harddrive device to store 13,000 songs. The 'anti-piracy' (DRM) aspect is there and gets the Sony Music devision off the hardware divisions' ass...
IF ATRAC was being used as an anti-piracy measure, you would not be able to convert potentially pirated MP3s when transfering.
If this 20G, $400 harddrive device stored only as much as the 20G, $399 iPod, then Sony marketing has no hook to hang their hype on. By using the higher compression, the marketing boys can claim the same (or more) storage than the $499 40G iPod for 'ONLY $399!! But wait, order in the next 30 minutes and we will throw in this AMAZING Ginsu knife ABSOLUTELY FREE!'
Therefore, the reason why other popular formats are not supported is a marketing decision. IMHO a bad decision, but still a decision that is theirs to make.
1) You seem to be implying - by making two statements with only one difference - that it is possible to ACCIDENTALLY push a woman WITH MALICE toward the fetus. Accidentally removes the malice aspect, malice removes the accidental aspect.
Reminds me of the parrot with a string tied to each leg. When the petshop owner was asked why, he told the shopper to pull one string. The customer did, and the parrot spouted a bibblical verse. "Amazing!" said the customer and pulled the other string. The parrot spewed a different bibblical verse. "Astounding!" said the customer, "but what happens when I pull both strings?" The parrot said "Idiot, I would fall on my butt!"
I think you may have just fallen on your butt...
2) You wrote "As a Christian I believe (with biblical evidence)...
I think you are running into circular reasoning.
You are claiming to be a Christian - which means beliving the Bible is the 'Word of God' and true beyond dispute, then using the Bible to support your belief in something else. Would a Muslem believer accept the biblical evidence, or a Hindu or a Buddist?
I am not saying you are wrong, I am saying you have not - and can not - proved your position. Likewise, I (nor anyone else) can not disprove your statement - because your statement only applies to you. You are saying you believe something because you believe it with no foundation in fact or real world evidence. That is fine, you are allowed to believe anything you way want to believe. Unfortunately, opposing abortion is not confining your actions to yourself based on your beliefs, it is imposing your beliefs on others. THAT I have a problem with.
Just as you are free to believe that there is a God that people were created in the image of, I should be free to believe in reincarnation, Karma, evolution, or whatever the Scientologists believe. Equally, Creationists, Scientologists, Muslems, and all others should allow you to believe as you wish. Contrawise, if you think others should be forced to do things because you think they should, or because your beliefs say they should, then, through the same laws, reasoning, etc., others should be allowed to FORCE you to think as they do and do things as they think you should because of their beliefs or thoughts. If it is OK for you (or me, or President Bush, or...) then it must also be OK for OBL or S.Hussain.
By using the Bible as your source and evidence, you lose your point - unless you are trying to say (you DIDN'T say it, but for your argument to be true you would have to assert it to be true) that your argument applies ONLY those who see the Bible (and only the version you use) as the 'one, true word of God' - in which case opposing abortion FOR CHRISTIANS would possibly make sense - but then Christians would not want abortions if they all believed as you do.
I can only think that either all Christians DON'T think as you do, in which case your issue is with them, or you are advocating imposing your beliefs on non-Christians THAT DON'T WANT THEM.
Amazing, don't you agree, that "THE WORD OF GOD" comes in so many different, conflicting versions, each with adherants willing to KILL others over the differences?
My biggest problem with ALL religions is that they all claim to originate from the same source - GOD - but they are all different and all claim to be correct which is mutually inconsistant and logically not possible.
Assuming for the moment that one of the many IS correct, how would I tell? Because NOT ONE RELIGION CLAIMS TO BE FALSE (even though almost all of them claim THE OTHERS are false) I can't eliminate any of them from contention for the 'One, True Religion" - or, as the one commonality of all the reigions is that they claim the others are false, maybe I should go with that common theme and say that all are false?
People who make a living from religion are parasites. Just like spammers, they present their 'message' to a great many in hopes that a few will buy their hooey. They get gratification either from money or power given to them by the 'belivers'. Of course, to keep their belivers, they have to offer something everyone else doesn't - which makes their version different than others. Of course, their MODIFIED version is the ONE TRUE version, just ask them.
Sorry, this is one of my buttons - along with stupidity, which this issue also pushes...
Maybe I missed something earlier, but...
:)
pedantic mode=ON
The correct name of the act is "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001"
USA PATRIOT is an acronym and should be all caps.
Using [sic] means you are aware that this is not used correctly, but are perpetuating the original error as found.
pedantic mode=OFF
You used it correctly, but I am confused what original error you are quoting.
Not finding it, thought I would ask.
As far as the acronym goes, I think the letters should be all squinched together as well - USAPATRIOT ACT, but how would you pronounce that? 'you sap at riot'?
Are you refering to the /. article from yesterday where "'Delta, Continental, America West, JetBlue and Frontier Airlines secretly turned over sensitive passenger data to Transportation Security Administration contractors in the spring and summer of 2002, according to the sworn statement of acting TSA chief David Stone. In addion, two of the four largest airline reservation centers, Galileo International and Sabre, also gave sensitive passenger information, including home phone numbers, credit card numbers and health data, without disclosing the transfers to travelers or asking their permission.'" ?
So we have home phone numbers, credit card numbers, and health data (WTF?) illegally being given out without permission - but thank $DEITY they keep our AOL screennames private!
PS Got the sarcasm, thought it was massively funny. No mod points, so I responded.
In an Employment-at-will state you are employed "at the whim of the employer", and only as long as the employer wants you to be employed. Without a contract, the employer can, without any stated reason, tell you you are no longer employed and you have no recourse.
From this (pdf) article in the "Monthly Labor Review" written by Charles J. Muhl, Esq. "In legal terms, though, since the last half of the 19th century, employment in each of the United States has been "at will," or terminable by either the employer or employee for any reason whatsoever. The employment-at-will doctrine avows that, when an employee does not have a written employment contract and the term of employment is of indefinite duration, the employer can terminate the employee for good cause, bad cause, or not cause at all"
In the footnotes, it is noted that "This article does not address statutory exceptions to employment at will. Many such exceptions have been enacted at both the Federal and State level." examples given are federal laws against discrimination, and some states laws against termination for 'whistleblowing'.
THe lesser of two evils is still evil...
Why are we required to pick from only two evils in the first place? If the best the two parties can come up with is a moron and a stooge, why is our only choice between picking a moron or picking a stooge?
Interesting that neither party puts as their first priority "can do the BEST job of being President" (or even "CAN DO THE JOB of being President"), as the parties assume they will be able to stage manage the actions of their puppet in the Oval Office.
I think I agree with you, but your presentation definitely could be better...
It's pretty dangerous to think that Bush is stupid.
I agree that underestimating a man with his power is dangerous, but only because he HAS that power, not because he knows how to use it. A thug in an alley with a gun will get my wallet, not because he is smart enought to use the gun, but because he MIGHT BE STUPID ENOUGH to use the gun. Stupid people with power are far more dangerous - and unpredictable - than smart (should be 'knowledgeable', I think) people in the same position.
Bush has not shown himself to be particulary smart or knowledgeable.
His administration has been ferociously effective at implementing their policies.
Yes, they have. 1) Those policies may not have been best for the nation, or even legal - see the U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T act, the handling of the prisoners in Cuba, the T.I.A. plans, the "terrorist futures", the Medicare changes, etc. Also note that when some of their agendas have been made public they were then scrapped due to public outcry - see PATRIOT II, T.I.A., etc - even though some of those same policies were then tacked onto other bills in an effort to impliment them even though they were known to be unwanted by the people the lawmakers are supposed to represent.
And 2) The ability to surround yourself by people willing to use and/or abuse their power to further their OWN goals (Ashcroft springs to mind) is not a mark of a smart man, a smart man would appoint the best people for the job, not 'cronies' and would give them working room to accomplish their job, but would restrain over-zealousness. That is part of the job of President, a part that either Bush is not doing, or the over-reaching and abuse of position is what he WANTS done - and they are getting the job done (getting into tinfoil hat territory here).
If he's stupid, I shudder to think what a smart president espousing the same policies might do.
I would hope (silly me) that a smart president would not espouse the same policies, as s/he would see the legality and constitutionality (as well as the PR) issues and would want to avoid them for the avoidance of the havoc it would cause the nation and the deletrious effect on their possibility for re-election.
On the other hand, I would also hope that if unpopular action was required, a smart president would see the need and put the needs of the nation before personal wants and take the required actions no matter the effect on their chances for re-election.
Me, I don't think he's stupid at all.
Me, I think either he IS stupid (actually, not smart enough for the job - stupid would not be a desirable trait in even a puppet president, and would not have allowed survival of the election process) or a VERY GOOD actor playing stupid - and I don't think he is that good of an actor!
Either he is not smart enough for the job, or he is playing the nation for fools and getting away with it - and thus should not have the job. Either way, getting him out of office would be a SMART thing to do...
Paraphrasing the combatants as I understand their positions:
TSG wanted this case in state court "because we clearly own the copyrights - there is no copyright question involved, only a contract violation."
Judge Kimball said that TSG had not shown that they "clearly" own the copyrights. Therefore, there is a copyright question so the case is in the proper court and remains in federal court. Motion to remand DENIED.
Novell said that, because the case is in the proper court to make decisions on the case, the case should be thrown out because TSG CLEARLY didn't own the copyrights, and so the "make a false statement" part of the Slander of Title case was not satisfied.
Judge Kimball said that just as the evidence does not support TSGs claim of "clearly" owning the copyrights, it also does not "clearly" support a claim that they DON'T own them - that claim would have to be clarified in court - so the motion to dismiss on the "false statement" is DENIED.
Novell also claimed that TSG failed in another important point in that they did not specify "special damages" correctly, and the case should be thrown out.
Judge Kimball said Novell is correct, TSG did not meet the requirements of specifying special damages when filing a Slander of Title suit, and the Motion to dismiss is GRANTED. HOWEVER, TSG has 30 days to amend their filing to include "special damages" properly.
Until or unless TSG files proper changes, this case is DISMISSED.
Dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE - i.e., TSG can refile this same suit again against the same people - but the judge has specified that their claim that they purchased copyrights from Novell is legally in doubt and would have to be ruled on after hearing more evidence or after a jury trial. He has also, in my opinion, let them know that they have little in the way of a case based on what they brought to his court...