Some nice spin through omission of your own. Those American settlers were invited and indeed even COMPENSATED by Mexico for settling in Texas, because they couldn't get enough native Mexicans to live there. They brought in so many that Americans quickly outnumbered Mexicans in Texas. It's not like what we did with the Indians. I guess by your reasoning, it was wrong for the colonies to have rebelled against the British, too?
actually the spanish invited us, It took some convincing to get the new mexican government to agree to the bargin.
I'm having trouble seeing how this is spin - you forgot to mention that there were several native Mexicans who were also settled in Texas.
Calling the War for Southern Independence a civil war is an example of historical spin. That would be the equivalent of calling the war for Texas' independence a civil war in Mexico.
Learn your history.
except the War of Texas independence was a civil war, we weren't the only state to rebel, but we were the only one to remain independent, And Mexico came after us after the settled down the other provinces like the yucatan.
What the difference between a game and a simulator, Srsly what's the difference between the f-16 flight trainer that pilots train on and the fancy Racing simulator games you play at dave and busters? other then the cost.
Iraq was to fight the "War on terror" Afghanistan was a response to the attacks on 9/11 with the ultimate goal to capture/kill osama bin laden(which we still haven't done) I hate when people think that both are for the same reason. Iraq was a response to some stuff that occurred int he 70s and 80s, and with the attacks on 9/11, Bush decided it would be a good idea to take care of the weapons of mass destruction that he thought Iraq still had. Back in the 70s and 80s, The leaders of iraq made and tested many weapons of mass destruction, including gases like mustard gas, tabun, botulin toxin and mycotoxin(wikipedia) They also apparently got close to nuclear weapons. In the late 80s and early 90s, the UN told Iraq to dismantle and destroy these weapons. Iraq complied. The issue was bush didn't think they did comply, and that they continued to produce weapons(which wasn't true)
I never fully supported Iraq, but i will continue to support Afghanistan. Mainly because most of the people that live there still support osama bin laden.
You see the problem is bush tried to call saddam's bluff when he had a full boat. What happens next is Bush went on tilt using our entire chip stack to destroy their country one brick at a time.
Did you miss the part where OP said you have a choice to send your child to a school with those policies? Keep him/her at home if you want YOUR rules to apply to their schooling.
And letting the parent decide the punishment, good one! "I'm sending my kid to school malnourished. I am wrong to do that, I shall now punish myself." Yeah, good one.
If it's my kid, Then I set the rules. Period the end.
"MY kid, MY rules." Sheesh. Here's hoping your child isn't raised to be a precocious asshat like his parent.
Listen, It's either child endangerment or it's not.
The thing is school's have to support these sort of options, Yes they have to offer lunch, But I have the choice to send him with a sack lunch. The Diabetic and the Vegan kids aren't going to be eating what the serve in the line.
Unless the Jolly-Rancher was the only thing is his lunch sack, Then you call CPS.
I Live in texas, And I'm not very happy with most of the school boards since they got taken over... er... Politicized oh about 10-15 years back. but that may be OT.
If you want to attend FREE school, you absolutely must abide by the state/district policies. Don't like it? You have a choice: Private school. Actually, there's another choice: Home school.
Yes, this policy is being abused, no it should not go this far, probably there's some subtext here not being reported (like continuous pastern of this issue, and singling out a particular student as an example). Possibly, this could even be an attempt explicitly to GET notice, so the law gets CHANGED! Very often, the best way to see a law overturned is to actually enforce the letter of the law, even if you don't agree with it, as doing so would actually create enough news and yelling that the law can be changed.
My wife's school has a pretty touch nutrition program. Nothing sold in the cafe is "questionable" on a nutrition standpoint. kids can't buy snacks unless they've already both bought and EATEN their meal (they have to get a pass from the cafeteria aide before they can enter a snack line). Snacks are limited to relatively healthy items, but things like chips are available, but again, only if the meal was actually eaten... Candy is not sold by the cafe, but it is available from teachers as a positive reward system. Parents are cautioned not to send certain snacks (especially candy) to the school, but kids can not be directly punished for it (a not is sent home the first few times, and contraband is confiscated if its a continuing problem).
What IS important to note: The PARENTS can actually get in some hot water if they're failing to either send a nutritious lunch, pay for a meal plan, or get on an "assisted" lunch program (for those having trouble affording it). They handle this by checking what kids are eating, and if the school feels the lunch is "dramatically poor" in nutritional quality, the kid is made to buy a meal at the cafe, and the parents get a bi-monthly bill for those meals. i.e. send you kid to lunch with some low-grade snack-as-a-meal, or fail to send one at all, and the parent is not only out the cost of what they sent (which likely will be thrown out by faceteria staff) but they get a bill for the meal the kid did eat. Failure to pay that bill (or get on an assistance or free lunch program for those that qualify) leads to added fees, late charges, and eventually collections (in the form of you kid can not return to the school until you pay, or fill out forms to get on a program).
Every kid that goes to public school in 8th grade and lower here is essentially guaranteed a good meal, regardless of who's paying for it. You would be flabbergasted at how many parents send their kids to school with little or no food and no money, and who would otherwise have NO ISSUES financially getting them a good meal. Many are simply lazy, others seem to not give a shit. The state has a responsibility to get involved. I'd much rather it be this way, including continual documentation of the neglect to provide a good meal, eventually leading to a DSS visit at home to find out why, and in the meantime the kid doesn't suffer...
banning candy (and sodas and other such pure sugar content items), is essentially done exclusively such that those can be used as positive rewards in other ways. Ensuring lunch actually includes basic nutrition (whether it be vegan, vegetarian, or other, many standard easily apply to what is and is not a fulling and nutritious lunch), that is important.
Fuck you and your WOT.
If it's my kid, Then I set the rules. Period the end.
I think in this situation the parent should decide the punishment if any. And I sure expect the parent to be able to over turn the detention, if they thought it appropriate.
I think Germany after WW1 is a better example, Tell me again why we invaded Iraq/afganastan/pakistan? then maybe i could tell you why a native pakistani/american decide to attack us.
Irans elite military units placed orders for large quantities of salad spinners from walmart.com early Tuesday. UN officials release statement citing possible miscalculation of sanction effectiveness.
Train Station? You mean people actually use the light rail?
I thought they just built cause the guy who ran metro always liked toy trains. well and he want to make his buddy rich, who happened to make expensive out of date trams.
I mean they could at least link the system to one of the airports like the dart.
they do however kill sheep, the noise keeps them awake until they die. the sound may or may not have an effect on fish and dolphins, we don't know yet. also fossil fuel is forever, check out a work called "deep, hot, biosphere"
I want to slap you, Gold disproved himself. But at least he used the scientific method, unlike a lot of people who push his theories today.
A not unreasonable number of comets would be required. The oceans aren't that extensive compared the bulk of the planet, after all. You'd need more asteroids, obviously, since the water content is lower. (But since we're not really sure how much water is in an asteroid, let alone was in them 4 billion years ago, it'd be difficult to come up with even a ballpark figure.)
Yet if some water was already here then it only takes one comet with organics to get the whole life thing started.
Slashdot Mirror
Some nice spin through omission of your own. Those American settlers were invited and indeed even COMPENSATED by Mexico for settling in Texas, because they couldn't get enough native Mexicans to live there. They brought in so many that Americans quickly outnumbered Mexicans in Texas. It's not like what we did with the Indians. I guess by your reasoning, it was wrong for the colonies to have rebelled against the British, too?
actually the spanish invited us, It took some convincing to get the new mexican government to agree to the bargin.
I'm having trouble seeing how this is spin - you forgot to mention that there were several native Mexicans who were also settled in Texas.
Calling the War for Southern Independence a civil war is an example of historical spin. That would be the equivalent of calling the war for Texas' independence a civil war in Mexico.
Learn your history.
except the War of Texas independence was a civil war, we weren't the only state to rebel, but we were the only one to remain independent, And Mexico came after us after the settled down the other provinces like the yucatan.
I see students failing papers because the Word on one machine does not read word files created on another machine in a different version.
And this is why my resume is in PDF format.
The iPad is supposed to replace low-end laptops.
yes, that's why it uses OSX instead of the IPhoneOS.
So this was a grassroots Astro-Astroturfing?
Wow mindblowing.
Dear Grammer Nazi,
Please Below Me!
I mean really It's not like i can go back and edit my post when i mistype.
It's a clit mouse.
It depends on who your talking to:
http://xkcd.com/243/
Yes, there are bunker busting bombs that would probably do the job just as well. Nuclear is overkill.
Because people build bunkers at -3000 meters all the time.
What the difference between a game and a simulator, Srsly what's the difference between the f-16 flight trainer that pilots train on and the fancy Racing simulator games you play at dave and busters? other then the cost.
Iraq was to fight the "War on terror"
Afghanistan was a response to the attacks on 9/11 with the ultimate goal to capture/kill osama bin laden(which we still haven't done)
I hate when people think that both are for the same reason. Iraq was a response to some stuff that occurred int he 70s and 80s, and with the attacks on 9/11, Bush decided it would be a good idea to take care of the weapons of mass destruction that he thought Iraq still had. Back in the 70s and 80s, The leaders of iraq made and tested many weapons of mass destruction, including gases like mustard gas, tabun, botulin toxin and mycotoxin(wikipedia) They also apparently got close to nuclear weapons.
In the late 80s and early 90s, the UN told Iraq to dismantle and destroy these weapons. Iraq complied. The issue was bush didn't think they did comply, and that they continued to produce weapons(which wasn't true)
I never fully supported Iraq, but i will continue to support Afghanistan. Mainly because most of the people that live there still support osama bin laden.
You see the problem is bush tried to call saddam's bluff when he had a full boat. What happens next is Bush went on tilt using our entire chip stack to destroy their country one brick at a time.
I think I lost the analogy but you get the point.
Very nice, substantive reply there...
Did you miss the part where OP said you have a choice to send your child to a school with those policies? Keep him/her at home if you want YOUR rules to apply to their schooling.
And letting the parent decide the punishment, good one! "I'm sending my kid to school malnourished. I am wrong to do that, I shall now punish myself." Yeah, good one.
If it's my kid, Then I set the rules. Period the end.
"MY kid, MY rules." Sheesh. Here's hoping your child isn't raised to be a precocious asshat like his parent.
Listen, It's either child endangerment or it's not.
The thing is school's have to support these sort of options, Yes they have to offer lunch, But I have the choice to send him with a sack lunch. The Diabetic and the Vegan kids aren't going to be eating what the serve in the line.
Unless the Jolly-Rancher was the only thing is his lunch sack, Then you call CPS.
I Live in texas, And I'm not very happy with most of the school boards since they got taken over... er... Politicized oh about 10-15 years back. but that may be OT.
If you want to attend FREE school, you absolutely must abide by the state/district policies. Don't like it? You have a choice: Private school. Actually, there's another choice: Home school.
Yes, this policy is being abused, no it should not go this far, probably there's some subtext here not being reported (like continuous pastern of this issue, and singling out a particular student as an example). Possibly, this could even be an attempt explicitly to GET notice, so the law gets CHANGED! Very often, the best way to see a law overturned is to actually enforce the letter of the law, even if you don't agree with it, as doing so would actually create enough news and yelling that the law can be changed.
My wife's school has a pretty touch nutrition program. Nothing sold in the cafe is "questionable" on a nutrition standpoint. kids can't buy snacks unless they've already both bought and EATEN their meal (they have to get a pass from the cafeteria aide before they can enter a snack line). Snacks are limited to relatively healthy items, but things like chips are available, but again, only if the meal was actually eaten... Candy is not sold by the cafe, but it is available from teachers as a positive reward system. Parents are cautioned not to send certain snacks (especially candy) to the school, but kids can not be directly punished for it (a not is sent home the first few times, and contraband is confiscated if its a continuing problem).
What IS important to note: The PARENTS can actually get in some hot water if they're failing to either send a nutritious lunch, pay for a meal plan, or get on an "assisted" lunch program (for those having trouble affording it). They handle this by checking what kids are eating, and if the school feels the lunch is "dramatically poor" in nutritional quality, the kid is made to buy a meal at the cafe, and the parents get a bi-monthly bill for those meals. i.e. send you kid to lunch with some low-grade snack-as-a-meal, or fail to send one at all, and the parent is not only out the cost of what they sent (which likely will be thrown out by faceteria staff) but they get a bill for the meal the kid did eat. Failure to pay that bill (or get on an assistance or free lunch program for those that qualify) leads to added fees, late charges, and eventually collections (in the form of you kid can not return to the school until you pay, or fill out forms to get on a program).
Every kid that goes to public school in 8th grade and lower here is essentially guaranteed a good meal, regardless of who's paying for it. You would be flabbergasted at how many parents send their kids to school with little or no food and no money, and who would otherwise have NO ISSUES financially getting them a good meal. Many are simply lazy, others seem to not give a shit. The state has a responsibility to get involved. I'd much rather it be this way, including continual documentation of the neglect to provide a good meal, eventually leading to a DSS visit at home to find out why, and in the meantime the kid doesn't suffer...
banning candy (and sodas and other such pure sugar content items), is essentially done exclusively such that those can be used as positive rewards in other ways. Ensuring lunch actually includes basic nutrition (whether it be vegan, vegetarian, or other, many standard easily apply to what is and is not a fulling and nutritious lunch), that is important.
Fuck you and your WOT.
If it's my kid, Then I set the rules. Period the end.
I think in this situation the parent should decide the punishment if any. And I sure expect the parent to be able to over turn the detention, if they thought it appropriate.
I think Germany after WW1 is a better example, Tell me again why we invaded Iraq/afganastan/pakistan? then maybe i could tell you why a native pakistani/american decide to attack us.
it might be cheaper to scoop the gas off titan
Nuke the Whales!
http://bit.ly/cctrnI
Which they shouldn't.
Why release your work for free? Does freedom feed you at the end of the day? Does it pay for your rent?
Only if you sell advertising for your free product.
E-mail is not a large-file-transfer medium.
Tell that to my boss
your IT policy blocks images sent to you via email? how does it do that?
I'd hate to think of how many flops a program that scans all pictures in all emails would take.
Irans elite military units placed orders for large quantities of salad spinners from walmart.com early Tuesday. UN officials release statement citing possible miscalculation of sanction effectiveness.
aren't those centrifuges a bit more powerful?
Train Station? You mean people actually use the light rail?
I thought they just built cause the guy who ran metro always liked toy trains. well and he want to make his buddy rich, who happened to make expensive out of date trams.
I mean they could at least link the system to one of the airports like the dart.
they do however kill sheep, the noise keeps them awake until they die. the sound may or may not have an effect on fish and dolphins, we don't know yet. also fossil fuel is forever, check out a work called "deep, hot, biosphere"
I want to slap you, Gold disproved himself. But at least he used the scientific method, unlike a lot of people who push his theories today.
I would have had first post, But i was too busy playing the beta.
Except more chips doesn't mean more performance.
Moore's law has nothing to do with performance.
It does if you use a XFPS, It's pretty much cheating on most fps's
http://www.amazon.com/XFPS-RATEUP-adapter-PLAYSTATION-3/dp/B0013WI4L6
But the only game i know that supports it natively is Unreal.
A not unreasonable number of comets would be required. The oceans aren't that extensive compared the bulk of the planet, after all. You'd need more asteroids, obviously, since the water content is lower. (But since we're not really sure how much water is in an asteroid, let alone was in them 4 billion years ago, it'd be difficult to come up with even a ballpark figure.)
Yet if some water was already here then it only takes one comet with organics to get the whole life thing started.