A very key example of God actively interfering with the free will of a human, for those who believe the literal truth of the Bible: In Exodus 7-11, God repeatedly "hardens the heart" of Pharoah, so that Pharoah won't actually give in to Moses' demands until after God has wiped out all the firstborn sons.
So the Bible actually teaches that God grants you free will unless that will somehow interfere with a divine plan, in which case you're screwed.
Actually, if we really wanted to make Washington DC green, and help solve the global warming problem, we'd find a way to capture energy from all the hot air that gets spewed out there.
But how about being able to afford $7500, but refusing to pay the $75 based on some (stupid) principle?
What I'm actually wondering is how the homeowner's insurance companies will react. My guess: they'll figure out which areas don't have public fire departments that save everybody's house regardless of whether they can afford a fee, and charge those people more than $75 extra unless they submit proof that they've paid up.
Why? What exactly do electronic voting machines give you that, say, an optical scan paper ballot doesn't? Electronic voting has more often than not been a solution in search of a problem.
Short version: "Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space."
Sure, this will be abused by the most unscrupulous types of advertisers. They're unscrupulous for a reason.
However, like the wildly popular Do Not Call registry and a voluntary program for direct mail, these do reduce the annoyance level a bit, because there are advertisers with scruples. The equivalent in the world of phone marketing is that the almost nightly "Do you want to change your long distance carrier?" calls have been replaced by maybe monthly calls from "Cardholder Services" and other obvious scam artists. While not perfect, it's definitely an improvement.
That's not why I'd even consider going to an art museum. After all, since a lot of those folks don't even allow you to take photographs, if you just want to say you've been, you can just lie about it.
No, go to an art museum because you might see something interesting, unique, beautiful, or mind-bending. I'm not even very visual myself, but a good art museum's works will draw your eyes right in and convince you to spend a while exploring the details.
Passing law without consulting the target of the law is inherently undemocratic.
I want to be able to break into a bank and steal money out of the vault. Passing a law against doing that without consulting me is inherently undemocratic.
The amazing thing is that only one statement in your post is remotely accurate.
If it's the same group of unemployed twits
Most attendees at protests in the developed world are either employed or students. Unemployed people generally are too busy scraping pennies and trying to find work to go protest anything.
Protesters these days are mostly on the wrong side of history and only effect fantasy land (where they reside).
Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - protesters were generally against them, both have turned into quagmires, and neither have achieved their stated aims (Iraq, because the WMDs we were after didn't exist, Afghanistan, because Osama bin Laden escaped from Tora Bora). Explain how the protesters were on the wrong side of that one.
You can find.25% of the population to protest just about anything (e.g. WTO etc).
0.25% of the population is approximately 15 million people worldwide, or 750,000 people in the United States. If it's that easy, prove it by organizing 750,000 people to protest stupid protests.
The fact that.25% is still a large number of people should not give their opinions any more weight.
Who's opinions should we give weight to? People who bother to get out and protest, people who answer public opinion polls, rich people, politically connected people, or some other group of people? No matter how you slice it, you're going to get a subset of the population.
Making real change is hard work that starts by understanding reality.
The one true statement in your entire post.
Most protesters just want to break things and/or find a nice slutty protester girl.
I'll make an assumption here: at least 5% of protesters who break things are caught by the police. In a typical major protest, there are about 100,000 protesters and about 300 arrests. That means that at most 6% of the protesters could even remotely be considered to be interested in breaking things.
As far as finding a nice slutty protester girl, if you've actually been to a protest you'll figure out pretty rapidly that a large number of protesters are married, often with children, a lot of them are elderly, and that the public image of a bunch of rowdy college kids hasn't been true since at least 1975 or so.
A good example of this: On February 15, 2003, somewhere between 6 million to 30 million people (depending on who's estimate you believe) protested the then proposed but not yet started Iraq War, in a coordinated protest across the globe. The US alone had around 1 million people protesting in various cities, most notably New York.
Not only were the policy goals completely ignored, but how many people who weren't there even remember that the protests occurred?
Michael Pollan is definitely one of the best writers on food out there today. Even if you don't read his books, the basics of his advice are: 1. Eat things that your grandmother would have recognized as food. For instance, cheddar cheese, not American Pasteurized Processed Cheez Food Product. 2. Eat mostly plants. You don't have to go all-out vegetarian or vegan, just realize that meat isn't the centerpiece of a healthy diet. 3. Don't eat too much.
Whole Foods is probably the worst possible way to get organic produce, both in terms of quality and price.
Much better options, in order of convenience: - Regular grocery store: Just better on price, but remember than Whole Foods' primary product is not actual good organic produce as much as the eco-chic that goes along with it. - Food co-ops: Harder to find, but these vestiges of the communal efforts created in the 1970's often have really good stuff worth buying. You can also often get better prices by chipping in with some of the work of running the place. - Farmer's markets: Generally pretty fresh and cheap, so long as there's any agriculture at all near where you live. - Community Supported Agriculture (CSA): You pay a fee to belong, and they give you a box of produce every week. This guarantees you fresh stuff regularly, is usually reasonably priced, and is massively better for the farmer than Whole Foods or even farmer's markets. - Farm stands and other direct sales: best for the farmer, your health, and your budget, but potentially a PITA.
"pulled the plug on efforts to work out a compromise among phone, cable, and Internet companies"
That right there is a perfect example of what's wrong with Washington. This debate, like so many others, doesn't consider the interests of the public, but simply the interests of the industry players directly affected by the new law.
There is absolutely no legitimate reason why the US government should be negotiating with AT&T (or Time Warner, or Comcast, etc). None. If the US government wants AT&T to do something, they can pass a law and/or issue a regulation that says AT&T has to do it. No negotiation required - if AT&T doesn't do it, the US government can then bring them to court. That's what makes the government different from a corporate partner of AT&T, and AT&T is subject to the government of the US as long as it's operating in the US.
However, there's an illegitimate reason why the US government negotiates with AT&T: AT&T is in the running at least for largest campaign contributor in the country.
Can you afford to lay huge amounts of fiber all over the place? Can you get the easements and deals to allow you to string cables either along poles or underground? I thought not. The geek know-how is important, but unfortunately is not enough to build much more than a somewhat more sophisticated BBS.
The basic problem is this: Projects in NASA take longer than a president will be in office.
So presidents will announce some grand new space project that will take a decade. The next president, in the name of budget cuts, cuts the project. Then, in order to placate the pro-NASA folks, announces some other grand new space project that will take a decade. And of course the grand new space projects never get completed.
As far as the congressional representation, they're primary concern with NASA is directing as much of the activity as possible to their congressional districts. For instance, Ohio's representation will do their best to ensure that more work gets done at Glenn in Cleveland, while Texas's folks try to get the work done in Houston.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, that's just the latest FBI gadget which %!@#$ NO CARRIER
What about the Lolcat translation?
A very key example of God actively interfering with the free will of a human, for those who believe the literal truth of the Bible: In Exodus 7-11, God repeatedly "hardens the heart" of Pharoah, so that Pharoah won't actually give in to Moses' demands until after God has wiped out all the firstborn sons.
So the Bible actually teaches that God grants you free will unless that will somehow interfere with a divine plan, in which case you're screwed.
No, they're sociopathic schizophrenic immortals.
Actually, if we really wanted to make Washington DC green, and help solve the global warming problem, we'd find a way to capture energy from all the hot air that gets spewed out there.
But how about being able to afford $7500, but refusing to pay the $75 based on some (stupid) principle?
What I'm actually wondering is how the homeowner's insurance companies will react. My guess: they'll figure out which areas don't have public fire departments that save everybody's house regardless of whether they can afford a fee, and charge those people more than $75 extra unless they submit proof that they've paid up.
Voting machines should definitely be electronic.
Why? What exactly do electronic voting machines give you that, say, an optical scan paper ballot doesn't? Electronic voting has more often than not been a solution in search of a problem.
Or more recently, Alberto "I do not recall" Gonzales.
You were lucky. We had to cobble a planet together out of dust in an protoplanetary disk!
Short version: "Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space."
We'd gotten this treatment for the Tin Man. It would have saved him an awful lot of trouble, what with having to go to the Emerald City and all.
Sure, this will be abused by the most unscrupulous types of advertisers. They're unscrupulous for a reason.
However, like the wildly popular Do Not Call registry and a voluntary program for direct mail, these do reduce the annoyance level a bit, because there are advertisers with scruples. The equivalent in the world of phone marketing is that the almost nightly "Do you want to change your long distance carrier?" calls have been replaced by maybe monthly calls from "Cardholder Services" and other obvious scam artists. While not perfect, it's definitely an improvement.
I'm not sure about a big bang, but it's definitely a cluster f*.
That's not why I'd even consider going to an art museum. After all, since a lot of those folks don't even allow you to take photographs, if you just want to say you've been, you can just lie about it.
No, go to an art museum because you might see something interesting, unique, beautiful, or mind-bending. I'm not even very visual myself, but a good art museum's works will draw your eyes right in and convince you to spend a while exploring the details.
Passing law without consulting the target of the law is inherently undemocratic.
I want to be able to break into a bank and steal money out of the vault. Passing a law against doing that without consulting me is inherently undemocratic.
The amazing thing is that only one statement in your post is remotely accurate.
If it's the same group of unemployed twits
Most attendees at protests in the developed world are either employed or students. Unemployed people generally are too busy scraping pennies and trying to find work to go protest anything.
Protesters these days are mostly on the wrong side of history and only effect fantasy land (where they reside).
Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - protesters were generally against them, both have turned into quagmires, and neither have achieved their stated aims (Iraq, because the WMDs we were after didn't exist, Afghanistan, because Osama bin Laden escaped from Tora Bora). Explain how the protesters were on the wrong side of that one.
You can find .25% of the population to protest just about anything (e.g. WTO etc).
0.25% of the population is approximately 15 million people worldwide, or 750,000 people in the United States. If it's that easy, prove it by organizing 750,000 people to protest stupid protests.
The fact that .25% is still a large number of people should not give their opinions any more weight.
Who's opinions should we give weight to? People who bother to get out and protest, people who answer public opinion polls, rich people, politically connected people, or some other group of people? No matter how you slice it, you're going to get a subset of the population.
Making real change is hard work that starts by understanding reality.
The one true statement in your entire post.
Most protesters just want to break things and/or find a nice slutty protester girl.
I'll make an assumption here: at least 5% of protesters who break things are caught by the police. In a typical major protest, there are about 100,000 protesters and about 300 arrests. That means that at most 6% of the protesters could even remotely be considered to be interested in breaking things.
As far as finding a nice slutty protester girl, if you've actually been to a protest you'll figure out pretty rapidly that a large number of protesters are married, often with children, a lot of them are elderly, and that the public image of a bunch of rowdy college kids hasn't been true since at least 1975 or so.
The scary thing is how right you are.
A good example of this: On February 15, 2003, somewhere between 6 million to 30 million people (depending on who's estimate you believe) protested the then proposed but not yet started Iraq War, in a coordinated protest across the globe. The US alone had around 1 million people protesting in various cities, most notably New York.
Not only were the policy goals completely ignored, but how many people who weren't there even remember that the protests occurred?
Michael Pollan is definitely one of the best writers on food out there today. Even if you don't read his books, the basics of his advice are:
1. Eat things that your grandmother would have recognized as food. For instance, cheddar cheese, not American Pasteurized Processed Cheez Food Product.
2. Eat mostly plants. You don't have to go all-out vegetarian or vegan, just realize that meat isn't the centerpiece of a healthy diet.
3. Don't eat too much.
Whole Foods is probably the worst possible way to get organic produce, both in terms of quality and price.
Much better options, in order of convenience:
- Regular grocery store: Just better on price, but remember than Whole Foods' primary product is not actual good organic produce as much as the eco-chic that goes along with it.
- Food co-ops: Harder to find, but these vestiges of the communal efforts created in the 1970's often have really good stuff worth buying. You can also often get better prices by chipping in with some of the work of running the place.
- Farmer's markets: Generally pretty fresh and cheap, so long as there's any agriculture at all near where you live.
- Community Supported Agriculture (CSA): You pay a fee to belong, and they give you a box of produce every week. This guarantees you fresh stuff regularly, is usually reasonably priced, and is massively better for the farmer than Whole Foods or even farmer's markets.
- Farm stands and other direct sales: best for the farmer, your health, and your budget, but potentially a PITA.
Alternately, vote Cthulhu. Why support the lesser evil?
"pulled the plug on efforts to work out a compromise among phone, cable, and Internet companies"
That right there is a perfect example of what's wrong with Washington. This debate, like so many others, doesn't consider the interests of the public, but simply the interests of the industry players directly affected by the new law.
There is absolutely no legitimate reason why the US government should be negotiating with AT&T (or Time Warner, or Comcast, etc). None. If the US government wants AT&T to do something, they can pass a law and/or issue a regulation that says AT&T has to do it. No negotiation required - if AT&T doesn't do it, the US government can then bring them to court. That's what makes the government different from a corporate partner of AT&T, and AT&T is subject to the government of the US as long as it's operating in the US.
However, there's an illegitimate reason why the US government negotiates with AT&T: AT&T is in the running at least for largest campaign contributor in the country.
It depends how fast he was moving relative to the calendar he was referring to.
Can you afford to lay huge amounts of fiber all over the place? Can you get the easements and deals to allow you to string cables either along poles or underground? I thought not. The geek know-how is important, but unfortunately is not enough to build much more than a somewhat more sophisticated BBS.
Remember who funded the original ArpaNet?
In this version, does Neil not flub his line?
The basic problem is this: Projects in NASA take longer than a president will be in office.
So presidents will announce some grand new space project that will take a decade. The next president, in the name of budget cuts, cuts the project. Then, in order to placate the pro-NASA folks, announces some other grand new space project that will take a decade. And of course the grand new space projects never get completed.
As far as the congressional representation, they're primary concern with NASA is directing as much of the activity as possible to their congressional districts. For instance, Ohio's representation will do their best to ensure that more work gets done at Glenn in Cleveland, while Texas's folks try to get the work done in Houston.