Agreed. But most residential users have Dynamic IP. Your personal IP probably changes every time you boot up your machine. So, those IP addresses you are seeing for anonymous users are pretty much useless.
A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation.
Calling Charles Manson a "mass murderer" is not libel, since he has been convicted of the crime in a court of law. Insinuating that Mr. Siegenthaler is involved in an assassination is most definitely libel.
As I linked in an earlier reply, This FEMA site has, in the first paragraph, the following quote:
There's something you should know: Flood losses aren't covered by your homeowners insurance policy.
Please re-check your Travelers policy. Make sure you are looking at a Homeowners insurance policy. This is not a policy for a renter (or tenant). Nor is it a policy for automobiles. And, if you live outside of the United States, you might be able to get coverage (your government may require that insurance companies provide flood insurance to private homeowners).
If this were Miami, New York, Boston, Washington D.C. or San Francisco, there would be no debate.
Note, none of those cities are located in a flood plain. If they were, I would still suggest that they be torn down and rebuilt on higher ground.
and the loss of South Louisiana's ports and oil resources would obviously be devastating to the entire country
For a short time, probably, but then we would simply build larger ports elsewhere and imporr the oil in those locations.
it was flooded for the first time in its history by the failures of men and not the effects of nature.
Yes, it was MAN that chose to live in a flood zone.
Louisiana residents have known about it for years and we've spoken as loudly as we could to a largely unsympathetic audience. We need committed funding and action now. There's even a model for doing it right in the Netherlands. Portions of that nation are far far lower than New Orleans. Yet the Dutch have learned through experience, ingenuity, and committment how to work with nature and save their country. As one Dutch engineer pointed out in the local Times Picayune, if our nation has the ability to move vehicles on Mars, surely we can solve this problem too.
If you want better flood protection, then pay the $35 billion for flood walls out of your own state fund (I saw on ABC News last night that for you to be protected from a Cat 5, it would cost approximately $35 billion). You shouldn't expect the feds to pay for it. Why should my tax money be used to subsidize your choice of a home? As for the Dutch, it is a poor example. The Netherlands is a samll country. Most of the country is located near the sea and much/most of the population lives in Amsterdam. So, when they reclaim the sea, and build flood walls, much/most of the entire population of the Netherlands benefits. When the US builds floods walls for New Orleans, you benefit. Those of us in California, Kansas, Ohio and New York do not.
I live in Pennsylvania, we have mine-subsidence insurance here for all of the underground coal mines. If there is Pennsylvania Mine Subsidence Insurance, a California Earthquake Authority and a Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund, then I assume the residents of those other states (like my home in PA) are the only persons paying into those funds. Maybe Louisiana could set up it's own fund for future flooding in New Orleans. Louisiana doesn't pay for my coal-mine insurance, so keep my money out of rebuilding a city in a flood plane.
As for New Orleans, as I recall the original builder of New Orleans, Jean-Baptiste Le Moyne de Bienville, built it at that site against the warnings of his own engineers, who told him that it was in a flood zone. So, I disagree with your blaming the problem on the "feds". The condition of New Orleans had more to do with building the city in a stupid location. The problem with the "feds" is that no one had the balls to tell everyone to move out of the flood zone.
My argument is that people should live where private companies will insure. Government should not be in the insurance business. If a private company will insure your home and you live in a flood zone, then go ahead and live there. e If you can't get flood insurance, and you still build in a flood zone, then any future losses are your personal responsibility. You shouldn't count on the government for flood insurance.
And, please, don't use the "Domino Theory of Disasters". It is silly.
I live in PA. While we have coal mining in our state, I don't think we get much coal mining on Federal Land. I'd be curious to see what happens in Western coal states like Wyoming and Colorado. Do they receive federal royalties for the coal mining on Federal Land?
Exactly how far off shore are the oil platforms in question. I can't remember details on the international law of the sea, but I thought international waters started when you reached 20 miles off-shore. If the oil platforms are more than 20 miles off shore (or whatever the distance is), then the drilling is probably occuring in international waters (I believe the Gulf of Mexico is considered "International Waters", since the various Latin American and Carribbean countries surround the Gulf). If the drilling is occurring in international waters, you are probably SOW.
First of all, "tenant's" insurance is not the same as homeowner's insurance. It sounds like you are a renter, not an owner. There is a HUGE difference between "homeowner insurance" and "renter insurance".
Second of all, check this FEMA site out. The first paragraph clearly states "Flood losses aren't covered by your homeowners insurance policy."
You appear to misunderstand me. It is easy to get private insurance on wind damage (Hurricanes and tornadoes). And, although I am not sure about this, I believe it is possible to get private insurance on earthquake damage. If you can get private homeowners insurance, and you are willing to pay the ever-increasing rates in places like Florida for Hurricane insurance, then go ahead and live wherever you want.
You cannot, however, get flood insurance from a private company. You can only get flood insurance from the Federal Government. Remember, the vast majority of the damage in New Orleans came from flooding, not wind. What I am asking is why should my tax dollars pay for someone to build a home in a 100-year flood zone (note that it is called a 100-year flood zone for a reason). Even more crazy, why should my tax dollars be use to build a home on a piece of land that is below sea level?
We want to rebuild homes..but, have to wait till FEMA sets new flood plain standards...have to see if you have to raise your house or no insurance.
Do you know why you have to wait for FEMA? Because the government is the only organization stupid enough to offer flood insurance. No private company in the US offers "flood insurance". And, if the government did as it should, and got out of the flood insurance business, then my tax dollars would not be wasted on rebuilding your house in an obvious flood zone. You could just move to, you know, higher ground, and start rebuilding right away.
Sorry if this appears to be a flame...but it is the truth.
If we could get our fair share of royalties for letting all the oil/gas be mined on and off our coast...get the 40%-50% that other states do when natural resources like oil are harvested (many interior states)...revenue that we've not had, but, should have for years.
Well, for one example, Alaskan oil is actually located within the physical boundaries of the State of Alaska. Last time I looked at a map, the Gulf of Mexico was outside of Louisiana/Mississippi territorial borders. So, I disagree, you don't deserver a penny in royalties--since you don't "own" the oil. For that matter, the State of Alaska shouldn't be profiting (because State Government's also don't own oil), but that is another question.
Yes, you too can now easily track all those slamming your product, no matter how much it might deserve public scorn. Have your lawyer on speed dial, because it's time to stop that pesky public from interfering with your business model by commenting on such silly things as "quality."
Yes, there would absolutely be no legitimate reason for a company to do this. Blogs, many of which are unsigned, are truly the worlds most reliable source for all information on those evil corporations.
some nice images of Pluto and its moons are included in links
Nice? The photographs are a bunch of small white dots! Does anyone else see real photographs? I guess he is referring to the "artistic conceptual drawings"
I actually sold that home "by owner". It's not too hard. All real estate agents to is provide you access to the Multi-list. Otherwise, their job is so easy, even I could do it.
Can someone tell me where I can get a copy of this internet thing? I don't wanna be left out...
You work for a computer company? You know...I bet if you could just find some 'product', you could put it up for sale on the internet...then, you'd make some serious money. You could then just sell this product to millions of people around the world, and have very little overhead. You'd probably be able to retire in a couple of years.
The sad part about that quote above is that, in the year 2002, I had a real estate agent tell me that very thing. Believe it or not, I chose not to list my home with that real estate agent.
The whole idea that a movie should be seen only once is an extension of our traditional conception of the film as an ephemeral entertainment rather than as a visual work of art. We don't believe we that we should hear a great piece of music only once, or see a great painting once, or even read a great book just once. But the film has until recent years been exempted from the category of art
Exactly! That is why I've seen Debbie Does Dallas at least seven times....but, oddly, I've never seen the ending.
When you look around the world, which makes more sense, that the universe is run by a single all-loving, all-knowing all-powerful God, or passel of flawed, vindictive, egotistical childlike brutes
Let me guess, you prefer the Ancient Greek mythology over the Biblical mythology.
Stanley Kubrick does oustanding images But when it comes to scenario he SUCKS
That's just a bit strong, don't you think? While some people consider 2001 to be boring, and there are many people that think The Shining was a mistake; you shouldn't fall into the trap of lumping all Kubrick movies together. Remember, this is the man that directed Spartacus, Dr. Strangelove, and Full Metal Jacket.
For the record, I love Kubrick. Even the movies that everyone else hates.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed. But most residential users have Dynamic IP. Your personal IP probably changes every time you boot up your machine. So, those IP addresses you are seeing for anonymous users are pretty much useless.
Let us review the definition of libel:
Calling Charles Manson a "mass murderer" is not libel, since he has been convicted of the crime in a court of law. Insinuating that Mr. Siegenthaler is involved in an assassination is most definitely libel.
Uh, "Free Expression of Values" is not the same as committing libel.
As I linked in an earlier reply, This FEMA site has, in the first paragraph, the following quote:
Please re-check your Travelers policy. Make sure you are looking at a Homeowners insurance policy. This is not a policy for a renter (or tenant). Nor is it a policy for automobiles. And, if you live outside of the United States, you might be able to get coverage (your government may require that insurance companies provide flood insurance to private homeowners).
Note, none of those cities are located in a flood plain. If they were, I would still suggest that they be torn down and rebuilt on higher ground.
and the loss of South Louisiana's ports and oil resources would obviously be devastating to the entire countryFor a short time, probably, but then we would simply build larger ports elsewhere and imporr the oil in those locations.
it was flooded for the first time in its history by the failures of men and not the effects of nature.Yes, it was MAN that chose to live in a flood zone.
Louisiana residents have known about it for years and we've spoken as loudly as we could to a largely unsympathetic audience. We need committed funding and action now. There's even a model for doing it right in the Netherlands. Portions of that nation are far far lower than New Orleans. Yet the Dutch have learned through experience, ingenuity, and committment how to work with nature and save their country. As one Dutch engineer pointed out in the local Times Picayune, if our nation has the ability to move vehicles on Mars, surely we can solve this problem too.If you want better flood protection, then pay the $35 billion for flood walls out of your own state fund (I saw on ABC News last night that for you to be protected from a Cat 5, it would cost approximately $35 billion). You shouldn't expect the feds to pay for it. Why should my tax money be used to subsidize your choice of a home? As for the Dutch, it is a poor example. The Netherlands is a samll country. Most of the country is located near the sea and much/most of the population lives in Amsterdam. So, when they reclaim the sea, and build flood walls, much/most of the entire population of the Netherlands benefits. When the US builds floods walls for New Orleans, you benefit. Those of us in California, Kansas, Ohio and New York do not.
I live in Pennsylvania, we have mine-subsidence insurance here for all of the underground coal mines. If there is Pennsylvania Mine Subsidence Insurance, a California Earthquake Authority and a Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund, then I assume the residents of those other states (like my home in PA) are the only persons paying into those funds. Maybe Louisiana could set up it's own fund for future flooding in New Orleans. Louisiana doesn't pay for my coal-mine insurance, so keep my money out of rebuilding a city in a flood plane.
As for New Orleans, as I recall the original builder of New Orleans, Jean-Baptiste Le Moyne de Bienville, built it at that site against the warnings of his own engineers, who told him that it was in a flood zone. So, I disagree with your blaming the problem on the "feds". The condition of New Orleans had more to do with building the city in a stupid location. The problem with the "feds" is that no one had the balls to tell everyone to move out of the flood zone.
My santimony stands in place.
My argument is that people should live where private companies will insure. Government should not be in the insurance business. If a private company will insure your home and you live in a flood zone, then go ahead and live there. e If you can't get flood insurance, and you still build in a flood zone, then any future losses are your personal responsibility. You shouldn't count on the government for flood insurance.
And, please, don't use the "Domino Theory of Disasters". It is silly.
I live in PA. While we have coal mining in our state, I don't think we get much coal mining on Federal Land. I'd be curious to see what happens in Western coal states like Wyoming and Colorado. Do they receive federal royalties for the coal mining on Federal Land?
Exactly how far off shore are the oil platforms in question. I can't remember details on the international law of the sea, but I thought international waters started when you reached 20 miles off-shore. If the oil platforms are more than 20 miles off shore (or whatever the distance is), then the drilling is probably occuring in international waters (I believe the Gulf of Mexico is considered "International Waters", since the various Latin American and Carribbean countries surround the Gulf). If the drilling is occurring in international waters, you are probably SOW.
First of all, "tenant's" insurance is not the same as homeowner's insurance. It sounds like you are a renter, not an owner. There is a HUGE difference between "homeowner insurance" and "renter insurance".
Second of all, check this FEMA site out. The first paragraph clearly states "Flood losses aren't covered by your homeowners insurance policy."
You appear to misunderstand me. It is easy to get private insurance on wind damage (Hurricanes and tornadoes). And, although I am not sure about this, I believe it is possible to get private insurance on earthquake damage. If you can get private homeowners insurance, and you are willing to pay the ever-increasing rates in places like Florida for Hurricane insurance, then go ahead and live wherever you want.
You cannot, however, get flood insurance from a private company. You can only get flood insurance from the Federal Government. Remember, the vast majority of the damage in New Orleans came from flooding, not wind. What I am asking is why should my tax dollars pay for someone to build a home in a 100-year flood zone (note that it is called a 100-year flood zone for a reason). Even more crazy, why should my tax dollars be use to build a home on a piece of land that is below sea level?
Do you know why you have to wait for FEMA? Because the government is the only organization stupid enough to offer flood insurance. No private company in the US offers "flood insurance". And, if the government did as it should, and got out of the flood insurance business, then my tax dollars would not be wasted on rebuilding your house in an obvious flood zone. You could just move to, you know, higher ground, and start rebuilding right away.
Sorry if this appears to be a flame...but it is the truth.
If we could get our fair share of royalties for letting all the oil/gas be mined on and off our coast...get the 40%-50% that other states do when natural resources like oil are harvested (many interior states)...revenue that we've not had, but, should have for years.Well, for one example, Alaskan oil is actually located within the physical boundaries of the State of Alaska. Last time I looked at a map, the Gulf of Mexico was outside of Louisiana/Mississippi territorial borders. So, I disagree, you don't deserver a penny in royalties--since you don't "own" the oil. For that matter, the State of Alaska shouldn't be profiting (because State Government's also don't own oil), but that is another question.
Hey, sex sells. If you check the x10 site today, you see a bunch photos that are very similar to your link.
So, I assume that you made the game interesting and exciting....
Yes, there would absolutely be no legitimate reason for a company to do this. Blogs, many of which are unsigned, are truly the worlds most reliable source for all information on those evil corporations.
Planetary Discrimination? Somebody call the EEOC!!
Nice? The photographs are a bunch of small white dots! Does anyone else see real photographs? I guess he is referring to the "artistic conceptual drawings"
I actually sold that home "by owner". It's not too hard. All real estate agents to is provide you access to the Multi-list. Otherwise, their job is so easy, even I could do it.
The sad part about that quote above is that, in the year 2002, I had a real estate agent tell me that very thing. Believe it or not, I chose not to list my home with that real estate agent.
Exactly! That is why I've seen Debbie Does Dallas at least seven times....but, oddly, I've never seen the ending.
The beautiful thing about teh interweb is that you can find information on just about any subject, just by doing a simple search.
Let me guess, you prefer the Ancient Greek mythology over the Biblical mythology.
That's just a bit strong, don't you think? While some people consider 2001 to be boring, and there are many people that think The Shining was a mistake; you shouldn't fall into the trap of lumping all Kubrick movies together. Remember, this is the man that directed Spartacus, Dr. Strangelove, and Full Metal Jacket.
For the record, I love Kubrick. Even the movies that everyone else hates.
According to IMDB trivia:
1) Rock Hudson walked out of the Los Angeles premiere, saying, "Will someone tell me what the hell this is about?"
2) Arthur C. Clarke once said, "If you understand 2001 completely, we failed. We wanted to raise far more questions than we answered."
Look Dave, I can see you're really upset about this. I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over.