I've been all over the U.S.A. and seen homeless people in all kinds of places - there are a lot of choices for them.
Not only so, there are plenty, plenty of persons who have been poor, done right and well, and risen out of poverty because of the freedoms available here.
Note that at no point in either article does the newspaper suggest switching to a private system.
In general people don't like change... especially when it involves moving from comfort to discomfort. Ben Franklin, in 'On the Price of Corn', said the following:
I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.
He goes on to say:
In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.
This principle applies not only to 'the poor' it applies to people in general - to human nature: the more the government does things for people the poorer they become. This is most obvious when government goes beyond it's basic function of dispensing justice and defense.
I'd rather suckle at the teats of Liberty than the teats of Uncle Sam.
Where can I get more information about this case? Because, it seems like if a book is written and copyrighted after this case's decision that Google will have access to that book whether I want them to or not. Or, is it that there will now be some corporate registry that the author would have to navigate to exclude their work from Google's clutches.
One thing I find in common to news about these bot-nets - they never talk about what OS they are running on. I don't know if the even know what OS they're running on, but they don't talk about it.
I wish they would: the Windows mono-culture is proving to be a dangerous place.
You're absolutely right: Global Warming isn't 'some "liberal" conspiracy' it's just an example of liberal hysteria, misinformation, fearfulness, and dogma.
Even IF there is a 'major issue' in the Northern Hemisphere we can at least conclude, from the article, that 'Global Warming' is a misnomer and that 'Northern Hemispheric Warming' might be more apropos.... *snicker* *snicker*.
Yes, cousins. That would have been all they had... they would have also have had a LOT of cousins to choose from seeing as how long they are stated to have lived.
What you seem to not bring into consideration is 'God', by definition, is, understatedly, much, much, much, much greater than you or I - in every imaginable way - and then some. Such a person is more than able to sufficiently explain himself in such stories and sufficient to not require that you understand all of what is written nor to explain it.
The real bottom line is whether you're certain of where you came from or not there are two absolutes about yourself: there is a day you were born and there's a day you will die (never to be resuscitated again). What becomes of after that depends on what you believe. John 3:16 is what I'd hope you'd believe - but your will is your own... or whomever you give it to - for now.
Fundamentalist Christians are violent? And they're violent because they hate women?
Are you confused?
To be fair, I think you make a very valid point about radical Islamist, but whatever their impetus, they are clearly emboldened by Koranic verses demanding death to infidels as well as the subjugation of women. But, you just don't find those parallels in the New Testament.
Please re-read the post: he is saying that THE only author of the Koran was a pedophile AND that the Koran tells about it.
He is NOT saying that the Koran tells stories about bad things. He's discrediting the Koran, and thus Islam, by pointing out that its founder was a pedophile.
...should the verdict hold up it will be heavily ironic if the extra copies of XP and Office sold due to crafty copy protection end up not being worth $388 million.
Yeah, but don't count on it.
XP has been around for a loooong time for a Microsoft OS. I'm sure they've made more than $388 million off of it... seeing as how they've been holding on to several billion in cash for several years now.
What the Bush DoJ failed to do was to not clean house by firing, as many as possible, those who were appointed by previous rivals... as Clinton and other presidents before him would and have done.
Of course, this is assuming the guilty prosecutors were 'appointable' - that is: subject to such house cleanings.
"Evidence-based medicine is the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients."
... I still find the implication that current medical treatment does not apply these standards as heartbreaking.
As mentioned earlier the correct definition was linked to.
Exactly. The post, which I erroneously referred to as the article, makes it seem like the use of evidence is not used.
But, I think you're right. If I'd wasted the time to read the extensive article, which you call a 'definition', I'd not been so mistaken about what was intended. (Is that article really about an idiom? I don't have time to read all of it.)
I'm glad you brought that up. It seems the usage could be accurate after all. Crap!
I had heard, some years ago, like in the late 1900's, some Jewish doctor in Eastern Europe had a chance to do all or most of the baby deliveries at the hospital he worked in. He took a reference from the Old Testament about the washing of hands, just with running water - not a bowl of (reused) water, and applied it to himself before delivering a baby.
Wouldn't you know it: the maternal mortality rate DRAMATICALLY lowered. BUT that when the doctor he had taken over for returned, they went back to their old ways, ignoring the evidence.
Now that I think about it, in general, doctors are the most stubborn persons I've ever met: if they weren't told it in medical schools it just isn't true.
My complaint lay elsewhere, this is: in the choice of words. It is very misleading in that it implies grandiose, conspiracy theory level deception by the medical community that just isn't there.
And having said that, it's actually dangerous because there's already a high level of suspiciousness by the general public... which might explain the synopsis' word usage. (*shrug*)
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=uk+medical+tourism
In the U.S.A. - hands down.
I've been all over the U.S.A. and seen homeless people in all kinds of places - there are a lot of choices for them.
Not only so, there are plenty, plenty of persons who have been poor, done right and well, and risen out of poverty because of the freedoms available here.
In general people don't like change... especially when it involves moving from comfort to discomfort. Ben Franklin, in 'On the Price of Corn', said the following:
He goes on to say:
This principle applies not only to 'the poor' it applies to people in general - to human nature: the more the government does things for people the poorer they become. This is most obvious when government goes beyond it's basic function of dispensing justice and defense.
I'd rather suckle at the teats of Liberty than the teats of Uncle Sam.
Sir, I stand corrected.
I guess you didn't live there long enough:
The posts on this site will give you an idea of the effects of socialized medicine.
It can collapse further.
Where can I get more information about this case? Because, it seems like if a book is written and copyrighted after this case's decision that Google will have access to that book whether I want them to or not. Or, is it that there will now be some corporate registry that the author would have to navigate to exclude their work from Google's clutches.
Thanks for any redirection/correction.
FINALLY, a voice of reason.
One thing I find in common to news about these bot-nets - they never talk about what OS they are running on. I don't know if the even know what OS they're running on, but they don't talk about it.
I wish they would: the Windows mono-culture is proving to be a dangerous place.
Please, let me inflame: Are you so left that the rest of us look like center?
Hollywood is a business. It is also very liberal in its views.
You're absolutely right: Global Warming isn't 'some "liberal" conspiracy' it's just an example of liberal hysteria, misinformation, fearfulness, and dogma.
Even IF there is a 'major issue' in the Northern Hemisphere we can at least conclude, from the article, that 'Global Warming' is a misnomer and that 'Northern Hemispheric Warming' might be more apropos.... *snicker* *snicker*.
Crude, at best.
Yes, cousins. That would have been all they had... they would have also have had a LOT of cousins to choose from seeing as how long they are stated to have lived.
What you seem to not bring into consideration is 'God', by definition, is, understatedly, much, much, much, much greater than you or I - in every imaginable way - and then some. Such a person is more than able to sufficiently explain himself in such stories and sufficient to not require that you understand all of what is written nor to explain it.
The real bottom line is whether you're certain of where you came from or not there are two absolutes about yourself: there is a day you were born and there's a day you will die (never to be resuscitated again). What becomes of after that depends on what you believe. John 3:16 is what I'd hope you'd believe - but your will is your own... or whomever you give it to - for now.
Egypt was God's 'Mulligan'? THE definer of good and evil needs... a 'Mulligan'?
Fundamentalist Christians are violent? And they're violent because they hate women?
Are you confused?
To be fair, I think you make a very valid point about radical Islamist, but whatever their impetus, they are clearly emboldened by Koranic verses demanding death to infidels as well as the subjugation of women. But, you just don't find those parallels in the New Testament.
Please re-read the post: he is saying that THE only author of the Koran was a pedophile AND that the Koran tells about it.
He is NOT saying that the Koran tells stories about bad things. He's discrediting the Koran, and thus Islam, by pointing out that its founder was a pedophile.
Let me end your guessing: you will not find similar things, as in: pedophilia being committed by one of the authors of one of the books of the Bible.
I'm impressed as the accidental affect of the pic looking somewhat 3D-ish.
It must have focused and unfocused areas that mimic how our eyes put things together for us.
Yeah, but don't count on it.
XP has been around for a loooong time for a Microsoft OS. I'm sure they've made more than $388 million off of it... seeing as how they've been holding on to several billion in cash for several years now.
This doesn't even consider Office sales.
Well, that explains the reliability issues I've heard about the site.
What the Bush DoJ failed to do was to not clean house by firing, as many as possible, those who were appointed by previous rivals... as Clinton and other presidents before him would and have done.
Of course, this is assuming the guilty prosecutors were 'appointable' - that is: subject to such house cleanings.
Finished?
I admit my mistake and you ream me for it?
From the linked definition:
Exactly. The post, which I erroneously referred to as the article, makes it seem like the use of evidence is not used.
But, I think you're right. If I'd wasted the time to read the extensive article, which you call a 'definition', I'd not been so mistaken about what was intended. (Is that article really about an idiom? I don't have time to read all of it.)
I'm glad you brought that up. It seems the usage could be accurate after all. Crap!
I had heard, some years ago, like in the late 1900's, some Jewish doctor in Eastern Europe had a chance to do all or most of the baby deliveries at the hospital he worked in. He took a reference from the Old Testament about the washing of hands, just with running water - not a bowl of (reused) water, and applied it to himself before delivering a baby.
Wouldn't you know it: the maternal mortality rate DRAMATICALLY lowered. BUT that when the doctor he had taken over for returned, they went back to their old ways, ignoring the evidence.
Now that I think about it, in general, doctors are the most stubborn persons I've ever met: if they weren't told it in medical schools it just isn't true.
I think one needs to recognize their audience when one writes to them.
The use of idioms is fine. The context they are used in makes a difference.
That is understandable
My complaint lay elsewhere, this is: in the choice of words. It is very misleading in that it implies grandiose, conspiracy theory level deception by the medical community that just isn't there.
And having said that, it's actually dangerous because there's already a high level of suspiciousness by the general public... which might explain the synopsis' word usage. (*shrug*)