Please stop this BS that "the government works for corporations". The government works for whomever pays the biggest bribes consistent with a politician's ability to lie about it. A corporation capitalized at $100,000.00 has no more ability to bribe than any other entity with that much money. That a bribing entity is a corporation is completely irrelevant. Blaming corporations is an attempt to attack a successful capitalistic mechanism, out of hatred for capitalism.
And how do you know that the people you shoot are those ominous "you and yours"?
By observation. By history. By knowing the culture. There's a world of difference from the relatively "civilized" wars between Western countries (the Falklands war, Grenada, etc.) and the current conflicts with Muslim societies. Open your eyes.
You are proposing a House with 10,000 members. It would be completely unworkable, and would tend to result in secret cliques writing laws (even more so than now.) I suggest you read C. Northcote Parkinson.
Lawyers in the legislature is a clear conflict of interest and ought to be illegal. It is in their interest to make laws incomprehensible to anyone not trained in the arcane literature of legalism. It is their interest to use words that have one meaning in a legal context which is completely divorced from or opposite to the meaning in common conversation. They pass laws to make sure their buddies have to be hired for anyone to get through the legal morass, and to ensure their own employment if they lose an election and have to go back to work.
Red-light cameras take pictures of vehicles and their drivers breaking the law. For most politicians, the equivalent would be 24-hour video surveillance.
One of the reasons Rome developed into a major city was the creation of sanitary systems. Early Christians rejected Roman civilization and its trappings, including cleanliness, a trend that intensified over centuries. This provided ideal conditions for the black plague and other diseases. For many reasons, Christianity is to blame for the well-named dark ages.
Putting aside atheistic and theistic rants that are subsets of politics, I've heard of more cases of theists deliberately frightening others than atheists deliberately frightening others. Jonathan Edwards is a prime example, a man whose preaching drove at least 2 people to suicide.
The injunction not to spread your seed on barren ground is also taken to condemn masturbation. The problem is that a decision must be made on how narrowly or widely to interpret each and every phrase, and then how to integrate the whole. If you interpret the Bible and similar books too narrowly, almost nothing is prohibited. Too widely, and nothing is allowed. Since a significant portion of the Bible is told in parables, some interpretation is required if guidance is desired.
In short, there's too much ambiguity in the Bible for it to be a useful guide to living.
but on most computers a single-window mode would be preferable.
The single-window photoshop configuration does cause some problems. Images disappear behind subwindows (like the layers subwindow) and can't be brought forward of the subwindow. To see the image, the subwindow has to be turned off, then turned back on a few seconds later when i need it again. Nuisance.
I like your point that a president having gone through such a problem would "likely be more apt to consider the patient's needs". Alas, experience shows that what significant politicians experience when it comes to medical freedom seldom reaches the public. After his failed campaign, someone in Goldwater's family wanted an abortion, and Goldwater supported that decision, and thenceforth abortion generally. That had no effect on other politicians, particularly conservatives. Clinton, Bush Jr, and Obama all admitted to mind-altering drug use, and all explicitly rejected loosening laws.
The FDA and DEA are more powerful than, and almost as abusive as, the mafia. They aren't going to submit to any reduction in their power.
The teacher undoubtedly stepped in it, but consider this: It is the teacher's responsibility to teach the truth and not allow blatant falsehoods to pass unchallenged. Creationism and nearly all religious teachings are obvious lies; it is a sad and shameful reality that most people don't see religion for what it is: a vicious fraud.
When you start out making a fundamental mistake, the conclusions that stem from that mistake are frequently nonsense, and often cause a lot of trouble. The fundamental mistake here is schools funded and controlled by government, with the result that education in the USA is a rolling disaster. All this hoohah about religion in schools is a non-issue if all schools are private.
Exxon-Mobil does 4 times the business (that's "revenue", or "sales") that Apple does. They're in an established and moderately stable industry, so there's not much expectation of growth, and growth is heavily factored into market cap.
Exxon-Mobil runs a tight ship and has meaningful competition with companies that produce an indistinguishable product. Compared to them, Apple is a dandelion, subject to being blown away the minute the public mood changes. Apple's got a lot of waste in its cost structure, it wouldn't last if it were in the petroleum industry.
Sales is the most meaningful measure of the size of a company. It's a fair measure of its value to humanity.
A carefully driven Prius (going 50 or 55 mph on a level highway) can exceed 60 mpg. Recapture is helpful only in situations where the driver has to brake, and it's not as efficient as never braking. The Prius's drivetrain is not as efficient as it should be. (From what I've read, there's excessive loss in the transmission.) The proper sizing helps a great deal, as does the fact that the engine never idles, and that the engine can be precisely tuned for maximum efficiency by running at one speed.
the real issue is that it's not sustainable for every person on the planet to transport himself and two tons of metal an average distance of sixteen miles one-way as part of a daily commute.
Straw Man! Straw Man! The situation you describe applies to far less than 5% of the planet's population now. Most people on the planet don't drive to work, or take any form of nonliving transport. Even among commuters worldwide, most who drive themselves use a vehicle under one metric ton.
India and China together constitute over 1/3 of the world's population. How many of them do you think are solo driving 2 ton vehicles 32 miles a day?
Any big plane in a big city airport is going to attract LOTS of attention if it starts backing without the aid of tug trucks and without the permission of the tower.
As much as I dislike using a company name as if it were plural, it is a collective noun and it is permissible use it as plural. If you wish to nit-pick, use it as plural when you mean "(the people at) X corp." and singular when you mean X corp as a unified entity.
Slashdot Mirror
Only one thing wrong with your post. The word "for" should be "to". King's legacy is the legitimization of rioters.
According to Wikipedia, rabbits and rodents are closely related, both being members of the "supergroup" Glires.
Do you realize that your proposal creates an incentive to kill successful authors?
Please stop this BS that "the government works for corporations". The government works for whomever pays the biggest bribes consistent with a politician's ability to lie about it. A corporation capitalized at $100,000.00 has no more ability to bribe than any other entity with that much money. That a bribing entity is a corporation is completely irrelevant. Blaming corporations is an attempt to attack a successful capitalistic mechanism, out of hatred for capitalism.
Whoosh. Are you completely ignorant of the widespread evidence that in addition to education, colleges are home to indoctrination?
By observation. By history. By knowing the culture. There's a world of difference from the relatively "civilized" wars between Western countries (the Falklands war, Grenada, etc.) and the current conflicts with Muslim societies. Open your eyes.
You are proposing a House with 10,000 members. It would be completely unworkable, and would tend to result in secret cliques writing laws (even more so than now.) I suggest you read C. Northcote Parkinson.
Lawyers in the legislature is a clear conflict of interest and ought to be illegal. It is in their interest to make laws incomprehensible to anyone not trained in the arcane literature of legalism. It is their interest to use words that have one meaning in a legal context which is completely divorced from or opposite to the meaning in common conversation. They pass laws to make sure their buddies have to be hired for anyone to get through the legal morass, and to ensure their own employment if they lose an election and have to go back to work.
We use the English language here, where adjectives precede the noun which they modify.
The past tense of pay is paid.
Red-light cameras take pictures of vehicles and their drivers breaking the law. For most politicians, the equivalent would be 24-hour video surveillance.
One of the reasons Rome developed into a major city was the creation of sanitary systems. Early Christians rejected Roman civilization and its trappings, including cleanliness, a trend that intensified over centuries. This provided ideal conditions for the black plague and other diseases. For many reasons, Christianity is to blame for the well-named dark ages.
Putting aside atheistic and theistic rants that are subsets of politics, I've heard of more cases of theists deliberately frightening others than atheists deliberately frightening others. Jonathan Edwards is a prime example, a man whose preaching drove at least 2 people to suicide.
The injunction not to spread your seed on barren ground is also taken to condemn masturbation. The problem is that a decision must be made on how narrowly or widely to interpret each and every phrase, and then how to integrate the whole. If you interpret the Bible and similar books too narrowly, almost nothing is prohibited. Too widely, and nothing is allowed. Since a significant portion of the Bible is told in parables, some interpretation is required if guidance is desired.
In short, there's too much ambiguity in the Bible for it to be a useful guide to living.
The single-window photoshop configuration does cause some problems. Images disappear behind subwindows (like the layers subwindow) and can't be brought forward of the subwindow. To see the image, the subwindow has to be turned off, then turned back on a few seconds later when i need it again. Nuisance.
I like your point that a president having gone through such a problem would "likely be more apt to consider the patient's needs". Alas, experience shows that what significant politicians experience when it comes to medical freedom seldom reaches the public. After his failed campaign, someone in Goldwater's family wanted an abortion, and Goldwater supported that decision, and thenceforth abortion generally. That had no effect on other politicians, particularly conservatives. Clinton, Bush Jr, and Obama all admitted to mind-altering drug use, and all explicitly rejected loosening laws.
The FDA and DEA are more powerful than, and almost as abusive as, the mafia. They aren't going to submit to any reduction in their power.
The teacher undoubtedly stepped in it, but consider this: It is the teacher's responsibility to teach the truth and not allow blatant falsehoods to pass unchallenged. Creationism and nearly all religious teachings are obvious lies; it is a sad and shameful reality that most people don't see religion for what it is: a vicious fraud.
When you start out making a fundamental mistake, the conclusions that stem from that mistake are frequently nonsense, and often cause a lot of trouble. The fundamental mistake here is schools funded and controlled by government, with the result that education in the USA is a rolling disaster. All this hoohah about religion in schools is a non-issue if all schools are private.
Hate is the coin of the realm for the left. Haters riot, and that's not what you see conservatives do.
Exxon-Mobil does 4 times the business (that's "revenue", or "sales") that Apple does. They're in an established and moderately stable industry, so there's not much expectation of growth, and growth is heavily factored into market cap.
Exxon-Mobil runs a tight ship and has meaningful competition with companies that produce an indistinguishable product. Compared to them, Apple is a dandelion, subject to being blown away the minute the public mood changes. Apple's got a lot of waste in its cost structure, it wouldn't last if it were in the petroleum industry.
Sales is the most meaningful measure of the size of a company. It's a fair measure of its value to humanity.
A carefully driven Prius (going 50 or 55 mph on a level highway) can exceed 60 mpg. Recapture is helpful only in situations where the driver has to brake, and it's not as efficient as never braking. The Prius's drivetrain is not as efficient as it should be. (From what I've read, there's excessive loss in the transmission.) The proper sizing helps a great deal, as does the fact that the engine never idles, and that the engine can be precisely tuned for maximum efficiency by running at one speed.
Straw Man! Straw Man! The situation you describe applies to far less than 5% of the planet's population now. Most people on the planet don't drive to work, or take any form of nonliving transport. Even among commuters worldwide, most who drive themselves use a vehicle under one metric ton.
India and China together constitute over 1/3 of the world's population. How many of them do you think are solo driving 2 ton vehicles 32 miles a day?
Frequent flyers don't run anywhere near the hours of flight crew, year after year, for the whole of their career. Please think before posting.
Any big plane in a big city airport is going to attract LOTS of attention if it starts backing without the aid of tug trucks and without the permission of the tower.
As much as I dislike using a company name as if it were plural, it is a collective noun and it is permissible use it as plural. If you wish to nit-pick, use it as plural when you mean "(the people at) X corp." and singular when you mean X corp as a unified entity.