Put them in front of a film with a sex scene, however, and they'll generally feel uncomfortable at best or start making retching noises at worst.
A sex scene?
I used to work at a middle school that had occasional movie nights. The kids would start yelling "yuck!" and "ew!" if there was so much as an on-screen kiss..
Wouldn't work.
If you look at the states that have higher income taxes, those are also the states that get less money from the federal government. (Oddly enough, IIRC, money flows mostly from "blue" states to "red" states)
Of course, the people in the state who order from Amazon get police protection, go to the park and read a book, etc. But an interesting argument nonetheless.
Well, if they're amazon affiliates and getting money from amazon for that, the state can tax it, can't they?
Now, if the state wanted to tax a percentage of the book cost, since that's a negative number that would mean they should return money to me, right?:-)
At one place I worked, the default password was a 3-letter string. It was the same for everybody.
I changed it immediately, of course, but I have no idea whether other people did. Security was lousy anyway; they didn't have roaming profiles so if you logged into your account on somebody else's computer, you got that person's email...
In fact, had the previous 12 years of Republican administrations not run the debt up to record levels, it never would have occurred to him to cut welfare.
Of course, you have to wonder why anybody would vote for a party that would rather have the budget go to foreign investors than to our own people:-p
Whatever it takes to keep the poor poor, I suppose..
I believe the "surplus" under Clinton was actually projected, not actual.
Well...depends on how you look at it.
First, there was the projected surplus, which was overestimated at 6-some trillion, then later cut down to 2-some trillion, over 10 years.
Then there was the actual surplus, as in the government taking in more money than it spent, which it did for the last two or three years Clinton was in office.
Of course, everybody always includes Social Security in the budget calculations, so if you want to be picky you could argue that Clinton didn't really have a surplus because, if you include the increased money owed to social security, the total government debt still went up, and you'd be technically correct. But he did a better job than anyone else in the last century.
Or, perhaps, 9/11 has had the desired effect and further terrorist actions haven't been particularly necessary to achieve their goals.
I suppose it could be argued that, given the erosion of civil liberties in America and the elimination of a secular regime that was hostile to OBL, that he's probably pretty happy with the results of 9/11.
OTOH, there's the elimination (kind of) of the Taliban in Afganistan, one of the few things this administration managed to (more or less) get right..
So, it's debatable as to whether 9/11 would be considered a success from OBL's point of view. If it continues to be used as an excuse for the massive budget decifits that are on task to do what he couldn't, then yeah, I suppose it probably would.
Your information is out of date. The 2005 budget proposed by Bush freezes all federal spending and eliminates or consolidates many departments.
All federal spending, of course, not including the Pentagon's budget (which is being increased to $419 billion, not counting the money for Iraq and Afganistan) You're right, though, they did manage to cut the programs that serve the poor.
Applications require planning ahead on the part of students, these students dont have a chance to apply to more schools after they've been turned down by one, etc.
Um, don't most students apply to multiple schools in case they don't get accepted to their first choice?
I suspect a significant number of people would vote for someone who openly announces his intention of screwing future generations in order to give them what they want, now.
I don't really trust an ATM with my money. I trust my bank to refund my money if the machine screws up, because it's not in the best interest of the bank to lose my business and quite possibly face criminal charges (there's a camera there after all) over something like $200 (which is about the maximum I'd ever transact in cash through an ATM).
Exactly. I make withdrawals from my main bank and deposits at another one by ATM, because it's convenient, but I get a receipt. If I didn't get a receipt, I wouldn't use the ATM.
Slashdot Mirror
If you did episodes 7-9, though, you'd need whole new characters (or at least actors)
Can you imagine Harrison Ford playing Han Solo now?
Put them in front of a film with a sex scene, however, and they'll generally feel uncomfortable at best or start making retching noises at worst.
A sex scene?
I used to work at a middle school that had occasional movie nights. The kids would start yelling "yuck!" and "ew!" if there was so much as an on-screen kiss..
I'm real sure there will be a lot of people wanting to volunteer to work for free as jail guards.
In exchange for putting spammers to work doing something useful? I'm in..
they have never done anything really stupid, for no reason, just because friends were doing it too.
You say that like it's a bad thing...
Wouldn't work. If you look at the states that have higher income taxes, those are also the states that get less money from the federal government. (Oddly enough, IIRC, money flows mostly from "blue" states to "red" states)
Of course, the people in the state who order from Amazon get police protection, go to the park and read a book, etc. But an interesting argument nonetheless.
:-)
Well, if they're amazon affiliates and getting money from amazon for that, the state can tax it, can't they?
Now, if the state wanted to tax a percentage of the book cost, since that's a negative number that would mean they should return money to me, right?
Putting an advertisement up over the commercial? No.
:-))
Putting an advertisement up over the show? Yeah, that's gonna interfere with my viewing! (Or would, if I had a TIVO
At one place I worked, the default password was a 3-letter string. It was the same for everybody.
I changed it immediately, of course, but I have no idea whether other people did. Security was lousy anyway; they didn't have roaming profiles so if you logged into your account on somebody else's computer, you got that person's email...
I can honestly say that I only gamble on my own computer :-p
Now, I did some shopping on my work computer, but that was strictly for business supplies. Well, mostly..
Of course, the mailing list message may actually be more useful than the manual..
the fact is that space science is not that important to the majority of US voters.
Is ANY science important to the majority of US voters?
THAT, I believe, is the unspoken plan of the Republicans.
Unspoken? I believe several have admitted it outright..
Which, of course, it just another example of how having either party fully in control of the government is a Bad Thing.
In fact, had the previous 12 years of Republican administrations not run the debt up to record levels, it never would have occurred to him to cut welfare.
:-p
Of course, you have to wonder why anybody would vote for a party that would rather have the budget go to foreign investors than to our own people
Whatever it takes to keep the poor poor, I suppose..
I believe the "surplus" under Clinton was actually projected, not actual.
Well...depends on how you look at it.
First, there was the projected surplus, which was overestimated at 6-some trillion, then later cut down to 2-some trillion, over 10 years.
Then there was the actual surplus, as in the government taking in more money than it spent, which it did for the last two or three years Clinton was in office.
Of course, everybody always includes Social Security in the budget calculations, so if you want to be picky you could argue that Clinton didn't really have a surplus because, if you include the increased money owed to social security, the total government debt still went up, and you'd be technically correct. But he did a better job than anyone else in the last century.
Heck, since when are republicans for fiscal responsibility? Fiscally responsible people don't spend more than they take in.
Or, perhaps, 9/11 has had the desired effect and further terrorist actions haven't been particularly necessary to achieve their goals.
I suppose it could be argued that, given the erosion of civil liberties in America and the elimination of a secular regime that was hostile to OBL, that he's probably pretty happy with the results of 9/11.
OTOH, there's the elimination (kind of) of the Taliban in Afganistan, one of the few things this administration managed to (more or less) get right..
So, it's debatable as to whether 9/11 would be considered a success from OBL's point of view. If it continues to be used as an excuse for the massive budget decifits that are on task to do what he couldn't, then yeah, I suppose it probably would.
Your information is out of date. The 2005 budget proposed by Bush freezes all federal spending and eliminates or consolidates many departments.
All federal spending, of course, not including the Pentagon's budget (which is being increased to $419 billion, not counting the money for Iraq and Afganistan) You're right, though, they did manage to cut the programs that serve the poor.
Applications require planning ahead on the part of students, these students dont have a chance to apply to more schools after they've been turned down by one, etc.
Um, don't most students apply to multiple schools in case they don't get accepted to their first choice?
Same in Colorado, at least at the universities I've been to.
Actually I've never been to ANY library that asked for ID before you could view their journals in-house.
I dunno, CAD hasn't been updated in a few days..
I suspect a significant number of people would vote for someone who openly announces his intention of screwing future generations in order to give them what they want, now.
Oh, wait..
Ahh, yet another case where you're better off with paper than electronics :-)
I don't really trust an ATM with my money. I trust my bank to refund my money if the machine screws up, because it's not in the best interest of the bank to lose my business and quite possibly face criminal charges (there's a camera there after all) over something like $200 (which is about the maximum I'd ever transact in cash through an ATM).
Exactly. I make withdrawals from my main bank and deposits at another one by ATM, because it's convenient, but I get a receipt. If I didn't get a receipt, I wouldn't use the ATM.
Which surprised me, too, when I first learned it.. Is that just because the kilogram finds more use?