I took his comment to indicated one or both of two things: either because he's a Marine his opinions on honoring the country are a good deal more conservative than most folks in essense, most of my brother marines are at the left tail of being offended on behalf of the US, so if I think the US overstepped it's likely that almost every American does as well, and two Marines generally have had more experience in foreign nations than most citizens of the US by virtue of the US having bases spanning the globe today, so he might have more experience in seeing what other nations do which could be useful in judging the severity of this punishment.
On an unrelated note why is/.s comment window so slow in IE?
Checked bags generally allow whatever is legal to import/export with only a few restrictions (live ammo, I believe, must be locked separately from the locked container with the weapon). Declaring a firearm is an excellent way to ensure that your bag isn't lost by the airline.
I didn't mean what wikipedia is or is not, but most people trust it as a source for media info but I don't think that's necessarily true, but do think the peception exists. Almost every arguement in the discussion against the spoiler tag mentioned that it is only useful for a small class of articles (those relating to fictional works), it's used specifically by other media only wikis, and it was unencyclopedic (which at best seems to be an argument centered on it will damage wikipedias reputation). That leads me to believe that they were very concerned about increasing their reputation on non-media subjects, and felt that having something that increased their usefullness for media articles was not the best way to accomplish that goal.
Tyranny of the majority is a specific case that happens when the cost of a decision is high for a few people but the benefits are modest but present for most of the people. It's problematic enough that it has a cliche (two wolves and one sheep voting on what's for dinner).
It's a real problem and something that our government was formed expressly to prevent (see the constitutional ammendment process, judicial review, veto).
You sure about those pricing structures? http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELDEV3101903
It doesn't matter where the milk comes from, Federal milk marketing orders are standing orders to buy milk at prices set based on location and those locations still are pretty highly correllated with distance from Minnesota/Wisconsin (it was changed from Eau Claire in 2002).
Looks like a case of tyranny of the majority to me. It appears from the discussion that there were a few people who placed very high value on not having spoilers easily accessable in wikipedia while most didn't like how they looked (or more importantly didn't like that they were a reminder that wikipedia is most useful on subjects of media rather than a trusted encyclopedia).
It was a marketing slogan for California? dairy products. If you didn't live in the West coast (west of the rocky mountains it's likely you'd never hear of it), as dairy products are split into two major markets (east of the rockies where milk prices are based on your distance from Eau Claire, WI and west of the Rockys where they're set by other criteria. Maintaining that price is the source of government cheese.
Murdoch hasn't come close to causing a war, yet. The Spanish-American war was pretty much all his doing. Remember that while Hearst only dominated newspapers, they were exceedingly important news sources at that time. He had much more sway in determining elections than Murdoch has, partly because people became much more jaded after Vietnam.
I can see your point, and although I know he owns a lot of newspapers in Australia, and BskyB, but I'd put Hearst just below Burlusconi as far as political power from the media in a country.
A whole lot of the cinemetography and storytelling methods used in the film were new and developed for it, and have been used ever since by lots of other films. The most important were deep focus (keeping the whole scene in focus and effectively flattening the scene by removing depth cues), and the visual montages to indicate time passing. Finally it was a great thumb in the eye of a newsman who had vastly more power than Murdoch could hope to have, today.
I don't disagree that someone with an income in the six figures has a very high income, and they're doing well, I'd hope that if we're comparing standards of living we look at hours worked, commute times, etc. $250,000/yr jobs aren't usually fun, otherwise they'd pay a whole lot less.
I think we as a nation should consider a tax policy that taxes wealth or assets rather than income. I really like the concept of Henry George's land value tax (or single tax). Especially if we're entering an era where capital with little or no labor is producing goods, in other words wages are likely to decline because capital is much cheaper than wages. High income taxes relative to wealth taxes effectively lock economic position.
It's preposterous that our country taxes for example a football player who earns a very high wage because his career is short, and he's much more likely to die young, at probably double the rate of the owner who has many times more wealth.
I don't understand is Democrat somehow an insult when Democratic isn't? I can see Demoncrats/Republicons both are pejorative. Why didn't they just start calling the other party the Republic party in return?
For the record I find most of politics to be pretty amusing.
Most people use rich when they mean someone who has accumulated a lot of assets, US tax rates tend to tax heavily people without assets, but who earn a large income. Those who have few assets and low incomes have nothing to take, and those who have assets aren't taxed because there are many ways to use them to generate benefits without earning an income:
municipal bonds are an easy one
structuring payments to be capital gains rather than income--you need enough assets to start a company and enough personal capital to be taken seriously on your own.
use of a charitable foundation to provide access to power and a small wage to friends/progeny
There are others but those are easy to see and common ones.
Finally, incomes are highly correllated with high land value areas so costs of living are usually much higher (with most of the real benefit (economic profits) flowing to the well established land owners surrounding those high land value cities. Most of these land owners are high asset but low income folks again.
Of course that's what it means, but at almost every university in the country you'd be very hard pressed to find many conservatives teachng a class that culminated in liberal arts degree, they're pretty much only found in engineering or for the really radical ones, economics.
I'd much rather read two partisan sources (one from each side) as they'll get to the heart of the issue better and faster than a neutral source will most of the time.
His point is likely to be, sex offenders with dead victims are less likely to get caught, and if the penalties for murder is less than that of sex offenses then the result of the stricter penalties will be an increase in sex offenders murdering their victims. Very few laws are passed with much thought about the unintended consequences of those laws, even when they're easily foreseen.
Doesn't support the indefinite holding of suspects without charge in internment camps.
He talks about this but how many trials has he brought against Gitmo detainees?
Almost all your examples are pure optics changes with very few substance changes in policy.
One of the key paradoxes of protestant culture (The US is still a very protestant culture) is earning money vs your attitude toward money. Almost all Protestant's believe it's important to work hard and live unextravagently. A part of living unextravgently is not admitting that you want or need more money. It's perfectly fine to go earn more money (that's hard work which builds character and discipline), but if one goes about earning it with lots of passion (for the money rather than the work), they're doing it for the wrong reasons.
It will take quite a while before Protestant attitudes cease to be the dominant factor in US culture.
I fail to see how the second largest oil reserves in the world aren'd taht much especially if Saudi Arabia has been bullshitting the world about reserves. Remember that Matt Simmons was one of the few people who admits he was part of Cheney's Energy task force.
Slashdot Mirror
A modpoint, a modpoint, my kingdom for a modpoint.
I took his comment to indicated one or both of two things: either because he's a Marine his opinions on honoring the country are a good deal more conservative than most folks in essense, most of my brother marines are at the left tail of being offended on behalf of the US, so if I think the US overstepped it's likely that almost every American does as well, and two Marines generally have had more experience in foreign nations than most citizens of the US by virtue of the US having bases spanning the globe today, so he might have more experience in seeing what other nations do which could be useful in judging the severity of this punishment.
/.s comment window so slow in IE?
On an unrelated note why is
Checked bags generally allow whatever is legal to import/export with only a few restrictions (live ammo, I believe, must be locked separately from the locked container with the weapon). Declaring a firearm is an excellent way to ensure that your bag isn't lost by the airline.
All I have on my maps are the US and outside of that "Here be Dragons".
I didn't mean what wikipedia is or is not, but most people trust it as a source for media info but I don't think that's necessarily true, but do think the peception exists. Almost every arguement in the discussion against the spoiler tag mentioned that it is only useful for a small class of articles (those relating to fictional works), it's used specifically by other media only wikis, and it was unencyclopedic (which at best seems to be an argument centered on it will damage wikipedias reputation). That leads me to believe that they were very concerned about increasing their reputation on non-media subjects, and felt that having something that increased their usefullness for media articles was not the best way to accomplish that goal.
Tyranny of the majority is a specific case that happens when the cost of a decision is high for a few people but the benefits are modest but present for most of the people. It's problematic enough that it has a cliche (two wolves and one sheep voting on what's for dinner).
It's a real problem and something that our government was formed expressly to prevent (see the constitutional ammendment process, judicial review, veto).
You sure about those pricing structures?
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELDEV3101903 It doesn't matter where the milk comes from, Federal milk marketing orders are standing orders to buy milk at prices set based on location and those locations still are pretty highly correllated with distance from Minnesota/Wisconsin (it was changed from Eau Claire in 2002).
Looks like a case of tyranny of the majority to me. It appears from the discussion that there were a few people who placed very high value on not having spoilers easily accessable in wikipedia while most didn't like how they looked (or more importantly didn't like that they were a reminder that wikipedia is most useful on subjects of media rather than a trusted encyclopedia).
It was a marketing slogan for California? dairy products. If you didn't live in the West coast (west of the rocky mountains it's likely you'd never hear of it), as dairy products are split into two major markets (east of the rockies where milk prices are based on your distance from Eau Claire, WI and west of the Rockys where they're set by other criteria. Maintaining that price is the source of government cheese.
Murdoch hasn't come close to causing a war, yet. The Spanish-American war was pretty much all his doing. Remember that while Hearst only dominated newspapers, they were exceedingly important news sources at that time. He had much more sway in determining elections than Murdoch has, partly because people became much more jaded after Vietnam.
I can see your point, and although I know he owns a lot of newspapers in Australia, and BskyB, but I'd put Hearst just below Burlusconi as far as political power from the media in a country.
A whole lot of the cinemetography and storytelling methods used in the film were new and developed for it, and have been used ever since by lots of other films. The most important were deep focus (keeping the whole scene in focus and effectively flattening the scene by removing depth cues), and the visual montages to indicate time passing. Finally it was a great thumb in the eye of a newsman who had vastly more power than Murdoch could hope to have, today.
I don't disagree that someone with an income in the six figures has a very high income, and they're doing well, I'd hope that if we're comparing standards of living we look at hours worked, commute times, etc. $250,000/yr jobs aren't usually fun, otherwise they'd pay a whole lot less.
I think we as a nation should consider a tax policy that taxes wealth or assets rather than income. I really like the concept of Henry George's land value tax (or single tax). Especially if we're entering an era where capital with little or no labor is producing goods, in other words wages are likely to decline because capital is much cheaper than wages. High income taxes relative to wealth taxes effectively lock economic position.
It's preposterous that our country taxes for example a football player who earns a very high wage because his career is short, and he's much more likely to die young, at probably double the rate of the owner who has many times more wealth.
I don't understand is Democrat somehow an insult when Democratic isn't? I can see Demoncrats/Republicons both are pejorative. Why didn't they just start calling the other party the Republic party in return?
For the record I find most of politics to be pretty amusing.
Most people use rich when they mean someone who has accumulated a lot of assets, US tax rates tend to tax heavily people without assets, but who earn a large income. Those who have few assets and low incomes have nothing to take, and those who have assets aren't taxed because there are many ways to use them to generate benefits without earning an income:
municipal bonds are an easy one
structuring payments to be capital gains rather than income--you need enough assets to start a company and enough personal capital to be taken seriously on your own.
use of a charitable foundation to provide access to power and a small wage to friends/progeny
There are others but those are easy to see and common ones.
Finally, incomes are highly correllated with high land value areas so costs of living are usually much higher (with most of the real benefit (economic profits) flowing to the well established land owners surrounding those high land value cities. Most of these land owners are high asset but low income folks again.
I see this a lot and I wonder, when people use Faux news, you know it's pronounced like foe, right?
Of course that's what it means, but at almost every university in the country you'd be very hard pressed to find many conservatives teachng a class that culminated in liberal arts degree, they're pretty much only found in engineering or for the really radical ones, economics.
That's hilarious, I never knew the Democratic party was the party of grammer nazis.
I'd much rather read two partisan sources (one from each side) as they'll get to the heart of the issue better and faster than a neutral source will most of the time.
His point is likely to be, sex offenders with dead victims are less likely to get caught, and if the penalties for murder is less than that of sex offenses then the result of the stricter penalties will be an increase in sex offenders murdering their victims. Very few laws are passed with much thought about the unintended consequences of those laws, even when they're easily foreseen.
Doesn't support the indefinite holding of suspects without charge in internment camps.
He talks about this but how many trials has he brought against Gitmo detainees?
Almost all your examples are pure optics changes with very few substance changes in policy.
No of course not, but that's why it's "wrong" to openly admit you want money.
One of the key paradoxes of protestant culture (The US is still a very protestant culture) is earning money vs your attitude toward money. Almost all Protestant's believe it's important to work hard and live unextravagently. A part of living unextravgently is not admitting that you want or need more money. It's perfectly fine to go earn more money (that's hard work which builds character and discipline), but if one goes about earning it with lots of passion (for the money rather than the work), they're doing it for the wrong reasons.
It will take quite a while before Protestant attitudes cease to be the dominant factor in US culture.
How many museums let you encode a message on their Enigma though?
But how long were we there that we were targeted? We weren't greeted as liberators with flowers and smiles in Germany.
I fail to see how the second largest oil reserves in the world aren'd taht much especially if Saudi Arabia has been bullshitting the world about reserves. Remember that Matt Simmons was one of the few people who admits he was part of Cheney's Energy task force.