I wouldn't call this a phone for technophobes. Not all of us are married to our cell phones. (Although some have gotten divorced and paying spousal support to them.)
It would have been nice if he would give some idea of location. Is this in the US, Europe, etc.? Someone here might know the local geography. The bits of metal don't look all that weird to me. It could be there because of a battle, a deposit of iron ore or other natural deposit. Are there any old mines in the area?
Being that it's the HOUSE that puts up the legislation, it will be the republicans putting the legislation up for vote and the democrats trying to block. It's never been a case of having no ideas...just that the democrats wouldn't let republican bills out of committee.
This is not surprising: the economy always does better when Washington is bogged down and can't pass anything that will either a) run up the deficit or b) cause more tax or other laws to be passed restricting business. In short, rendering them mostly harmless.
Actually, the other way around. Democrats never mention the word "bipartisanship" until they're no longer in charge. Then they expect Republicans to agree to their terms. To them, compromise means agreeing with the democrats.
The clock is ticking, too. Without Net Neutrality laws very soon, the Internet is going to become a dystopic mutation of what we thought it might become a decade or two ago. It will become the Bizarro-world, opposite of an open forum where anyone can reach a wide audience without having to pass through the gates of money and power. It will do for the free exchange of ideas and information what Fox News has done for news.
You mean give viewers a choice?
In other words, it will become television, except you'll have to pay for it and watch commercials.
Hmmm...I don't know where you get your access to the internet, but here we have to pay right now...and yes there are ads, although adblocker helps.
That's also because it's a geeky woman making fun of non-technical women who need a technical man to fix things. No double standard because it would be like a geek guy telling non-geek guys how to date...oh wait.
"Organizations like Wikileaks are essential to having a democratic country."
In case you didn't know, Julian Assange isn't American, he's Australia, so he's not trying to help OUR democracy. And he's not doing this out of some need-to-know public good. He's against the war, plain and simple. He's not trying to give you facts--he wants to spread secrets to the enemy and anti-war propaganda. Yes, there are others who try to spread propaganda on both sides. But let's not pretend he's without bias--he's promoting his view on whatever he releases or doesn't. How you feel about it is probably based on if you agree with his view or not.
There were a lot of secrets that had to be kept in WWII and in any war. Balancing the playing field by letting the enemy know what you're up to doesn't bring peace, it brings death.
I never denied that women haven't been bullies or that women haven't been physically violent. Because of society, however, most "bullying" occurred on a more intellectual level vs. physical. Until recently, it wasn't acceptable in society for women to turn to physical violence. I've even seen cases where the parent was egging a daughter on like he would have his son: to stand up and fight. My theory, although I digressed a bit, was that when a group doesn't feel protected or that there is no longer a social structure to things, they resort to violence or the threat thereof--sometimes in order to attempt to bluff out the other. Whether you like it or not it used to be if a woman was threatened she didn't always have to worry that no one would come to her aid and therefore didn't have to become aggressive. Now she can't always count on a boyfriend, husband or passerby to assist. I think, especially in our more crowded urban areas, that people are starting to de-evolve into animals battling over territory, mates, food, etc.
I would propose the theory that women have become more aggressive because they have to in order to protect themselves against not only an aggressive man, but other women. When no one will step in to help, the "weak" (physically less stronger, whether male, female, elderly, etc.) either have to fight or die. Very few people will step in to help someone. They tend to turn their back and say, "Not my problem."
It has within the past decades become OK for girls to not only protect themselves, but become bullies. Of course there have always been bullies of both sexes, but we see more and more young girls duking it out like sailors in a drunken brawl. Everyone just stands around and films it then posts it on YouTube. It's okay for people to get into a bitch slap on the daytime TV shows. (I've no doubt these people are actors and this is set up, but it simply enforces that it's acceptable to lay hands on someone just because you're pissed off or you're "disrespected.")
I've got to wonder about "scientists" who want to watch mice fighting. What scientific value does this have and how is it any different from cock-fighting or dog fights? Why don't they just go on the street and watch real humans in crowded urban areas or how people act watching a cage match fight? You can put two beta fish together and they'll always fight--why...because they come from a land where they live in small bodies of water, marsh areas (which is why they can also jump out of the bowl--they have to be able to hop to the next puddle.) It's for purely territorial survival reasons that they fight other fish. I expect it's the same for the mice too.
I agree in that I think it's a cultural thing. But to the topic, I don't think Indian or Asian Americans are any more gifted in the area of spelling. This would be like asking why do so many African-Americans are good at (American) football. And it's funny, because if THAT were the question, it would probably be considered racist, and yet it seems to be okay to assume that because someone is Asian-American they are supposed to be really smart or good at spelling.
Individual talent aside, it all depends on what a culture values. Just like if you have parents who like to read, you probably enjoy reading also.
But for those of us who struggled with "i before e" tell me this: Name or ask anyone to name last year's winner of the National Scripps Spelling Bee. Fame is fleeting....:)
(By the way, if you're not a natural speller but want to get better, I recommend turning auto-correct off--if you see the same word popping up with the red underline, you're likely to get tired of having to fix it and finally learn how to spell it. I know that helped me as an adult.)
Re:Was Not Impressed at All
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
One of the biggest mysteries last night was where did they suddenly find a roll of duct tape to fix the plane?
Re:Was Not Impressed at All
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 1
See...I felt like at very end (with the credit rolling and the scene of the rusting wreckage), they were saying they ALL died in the crash and some remained in purgatory on the island with others who had ended up there and had died. If the bomb going off happened, the island would have been on the bottom of the ocean.
Personally I thought it ended like a bad French film.
That would be the true if using the true definition of liberal. But it's hardly the norm of the political liberal left today (and aka "progressives"). The liberal politicians and wealthy liberals (such as Hollywood) are seen as hypocrites who tell everyone to do without and conserve while flying around the country in their private jets. They are the elite who want to treat the population as children: They want to tell us what to eat, what kind of car we should drive and belittle those who protest by calling them "teabaggers," after complaining they were being called unpatriotic a few years ago.
If liberals were really, well...liberal, there would be LESS government, not more; LESS regulations, not more and they wouldn't be in Washington voting lock step to force more taxes and bad policies down our throat despite what the people want.
Voluntary often turns into compulsory eventually. Why would they possibly need anyone's DNA? And if some woman is attacked on campus are they then going to turn samples over to law enforcement or other agency to test for a possible match?
In Texas, parents recently found out that since 2002, blood drawn from their infants for routine screening, was being kept and sometimes sold. There was an "opt-out" program, which of course most parents didn't know about. Who wants your kid's DNA floating around?
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't call this a phone for technophobes. Not all of us are married to our cell phones. (Although some have gotten divorced and paying spousal support to them.)
First a guy tried to light a bomb in his shoe...now we have to take our shoes off to fly on an airplane.
Then a guy tried to light a bomb in his underwear...now we have to have TSA pervs feel us up.
What happens if someone next tries to hide a bomb up his ass?
How long are we willing to be made to feel humiliated and violated in the name of so-called security?
It would have been nice if he would give some idea of location. Is this in the US, Europe, etc.? Someone here might know the local geography. The bits of metal don't look all that weird to me. It could be there because of a battle, a deposit of iron ore or other natural deposit. Are there any old mines in the area?
And do you have any food synthesizers that went down?
Yeah, I'm wondering if we're being punked with a video game promotion....
Or stop doing drugs....
Yeah...the government's doing a GREAT job of protecting our privacy.
What starts out as government "protection" often turns into oppression, eventually.
HUGE mandate.... of course knowing some Repubs, they're probably actually hoping for a "man date".
No...that would be Barney Frank....
Being that it's the HOUSE that puts up the legislation, it will be the republicans putting the legislation up for vote and the democrats trying to block. It's never been a case of having no ideas...just that the democrats wouldn't let republican bills out of committee.
This is not surprising: the economy always does better when Washington is bogged down and can't pass anything that will either a) run up the deficit or b) cause more tax or other laws to be passed restricting business. In short, rendering them mostly harmless.
Actually, the other way around. Democrats never mention the word "bipartisanship" until they're no longer in charge. Then they expect Republicans to agree to their terms. To them, compromise means agreeing with the democrats.
Just don't cross the streams!
The clock is ticking, too. Without Net Neutrality laws very soon, the Internet is going to become a dystopic mutation of what we thought it might become a decade or two ago. It will become the Bizarro-world, opposite of an open forum where anyone can reach a wide audience without having to pass through the gates of money and power. It will do for the free exchange of ideas and information what Fox News has done for news.
You mean give viewers a choice?
In other words, it will become television, except you'll have to pay for it and watch commercials.
Hmmm...I don't know where you get your access to the internet, but here we have to pay right now...and yes there are ads, although adblocker helps.
Don't forget, they'll have to pass the bill to find out what's in it!
That's also because it's a geeky woman making fun of non-technical women who need a technical man to fix things. No double standard because it would be like a geek guy telling non-geek guys how to date...oh wait.
"Organizations like Wikileaks are essential to having a democratic country."
In case you didn't know, Julian Assange isn't American, he's Australia, so he's not trying to help OUR democracy. And he's not doing this out of some need-to-know public good. He's against the war, plain and simple. He's not trying to give you facts--he wants to spread secrets to the enemy and anti-war propaganda. Yes, there are others who try to spread propaganda on both sides. But let's not pretend he's without bias--he's promoting his view on whatever he releases or doesn't. How you feel about it is probably based on if you agree with his view or not.
There were a lot of secrets that had to be kept in WWII and in any war. Balancing the playing field by letting the enemy know what you're up to doesn't bring peace, it brings death.
Well I'm sure if the government handles AT&T, Comcast, etc. like they did Goldman Sachs, I'm sure everything will be hunky-dory
//sarcasm off
I never denied that women haven't been bullies or that women haven't been physically violent. Because of society, however, most "bullying" occurred on a more intellectual level vs. physical. Until recently, it wasn't acceptable in society for women to turn to physical violence. I've even seen cases where the parent was egging a daughter on like he would have his son: to stand up and fight. My theory, although I digressed a bit, was that when a group doesn't feel protected or that there is no longer a social structure to things, they resort to violence or the threat thereof--sometimes in order to attempt to bluff out the other. Whether you like it or not it used to be if a woman was threatened she didn't always have to worry that no one would come to her aid and therefore didn't have to become aggressive. Now she can't always count on a boyfriend, husband or passerby to assist. I think, especially in our more crowded urban areas, that people are starting to de-evolve into animals battling over territory, mates, food, etc.
Doesn't that simply show a superior intellect outwitting superior physical strength?
I would propose the theory that women have become more aggressive because they have to in order to protect themselves against not only an aggressive man, but other women. When no one will step in to help, the "weak" (physically less stronger, whether male, female, elderly, etc.) either have to fight or die. Very few people will step in to help someone. They tend to turn their back and say, "Not my problem."
It has within the past decades become OK for girls to not only protect themselves, but become bullies. Of course there have always been bullies of both sexes, but we see more and more young girls duking it out like sailors in a drunken brawl. Everyone just stands around and films it then posts it on YouTube. It's okay for people to get into a bitch slap on the daytime TV shows. (I've no doubt these people are actors and this is set up, but it simply enforces that it's acceptable to lay hands on someone just because you're pissed off or you're "disrespected.")
I've got to wonder about "scientists" who want to watch mice fighting. What scientific value does this have and how is it any different from cock-fighting or dog fights? Why don't they just go on the street and watch real humans in crowded urban areas or how people act watching a cage match fight? You can put two beta fish together and they'll always fight--why...because they come from a land where they live in small bodies of water, marsh areas (which is why they can also jump out of the bowl--they have to be able to hop to the next puddle.) It's for purely territorial survival reasons that they fight other fish. I expect it's the same for the mice too.
And then they show up fat and ugly at their 20th high-school reunion....
Uh...no, India is considered part of Asia, just as the middle east is.
I'm guessing you didn't make the Geography bee. ;-)
I agree in that I think it's a cultural thing. But to the topic, I don't think Indian or Asian Americans are any more gifted in the area of spelling. This would be like asking why do so many African-Americans are good at (American) football. And it's funny, because if THAT were the question, it would probably be considered racist, and yet it seems to be okay to assume that because someone is Asian-American they are supposed to be really smart or good at spelling.
Individual talent aside, it all depends on what a culture values. Just like if you have parents who like to read, you probably enjoy reading also.
But for those of us who struggled with "i before e" tell me this: Name or ask anyone to name last year's winner of the National Scripps Spelling Bee. Fame is fleeting.... :)
(By the way, if you're not a natural speller but want to get better, I recommend turning auto-correct off--if you see the same word popping up with the red underline, you're likely to get tired of having to fix it and finally learn how to spell it. I know that helped me as an adult.)
One of the biggest mysteries last night was where did they suddenly find a roll of duct tape to fix the plane?
See...I felt like at very end (with the credit rolling and the scene of the rusting wreckage), they were saying they ALL died in the crash and some remained in purgatory on the island with others who had ended up there and had died. If the bomb going off happened, the island would have been on the bottom of the ocean.
Personally I thought it ended like a bad French film.
But it is past time to move on....
That would be the true if using the true definition of liberal. But it's hardly the norm of the political liberal left today (and aka "progressives"). The liberal politicians and wealthy liberals (such as Hollywood) are seen as hypocrites who tell everyone to do without and conserve while flying around the country in their private jets. They are the elite who want to treat the population as children: They want to tell us what to eat, what kind of car we should drive and belittle those who protest by calling them "teabaggers," after complaining they were being called unpatriotic a few years ago.
If liberals were really, well...liberal, there would be LESS government, not more; LESS regulations, not more and they wouldn't be in Washington voting lock step to force more taxes and bad policies down our throat despite what the people want.
Voluntary often turns into compulsory eventually. Why would they possibly need anyone's DNA? And if some woman is attacked on campus are they then going to turn samples over to law enforcement or other agency to test for a possible match?
In Texas, parents recently found out that since 2002, blood drawn from their infants for routine screening, was being kept and sometimes sold. There was an "opt-out" program, which of course most parents didn't know about. Who wants your kid's DNA floating around?