I don't think you understand what "conservative" and "liberal" mean. It's especially obvious when you pair them with "capitalist" and "communist", respectively.
liberal != communist
conservative != capitalist
I suggest using a dictionary to learn the meanings of words.
One of the greatest setbacks that CoD has suffered within my gaming group is the lack of CO-OP multiplayer on the LAN. We prefer to start our own server and play with the bots. 2142 forces you to gain rank -only- in online PvP play, which we think sucks big donkey dick (though we just found a cheat that allows you to build rank for LAN-only play). Does CoD4 offer a CO-OP LAN multiplayer option?
I'd add that if you are really good at turning around fixes in 72 hours, the customer will come to expect that. It will get to the point that they'll growl and pester when you take 96 hours on a fix.
Managing the expectations generated by your history of success is much harder to do, regardless of what the SLA says.
We do have electronic records. I work for a shop that depends heavily on them, and our software products are only available in the US, touching 90% of all prescriptions filled in the US.
I'm not so sure that it's behind much of a curtain. At all the political party conventions, there are corporate-sponsored "networking" events that delegates get to attend. All-you-can-eat shrimp cocktails and all-the-champagne-you-can-drink. It's pretty much out in the open, as I see it.
I didn't say anything about it being easy. I only meant to point out that if someone wants to write their own rules for when they work and what they wear, they have options. For my team, each person establishes an agreement with me about what their hours are, and we stick with that. Variances are noted, with some allowance for periodic outside-of-work obligations, bad traffic, etc. If lateness starts to be the norm, it's dealt with as a performance problem. Engineers with performance problems either get no raise at salary review time, or a token adjustment. Promotion is completely ruled out. That's business. If someone wants to start their own business and decide what they think is right, then they don't have to play by my rules. Funny, though, people who may slack when working for someone else suddenly find all sorts of motivation to start the day early when they're the boss, and they suddenly stop tolerating tardiness in their own employees. Funny, that.
Re your question "Can you show me any benefit my boss would derive from requiring me to wear a suit or that I must be in the office around certain hours?"
I can, actually, but not about the suit part. Even though I'm not your boss, I do manage a half-dozen engineers on my team... and I could care less about what they wear, btw.
What it comes down to for me is that (if you're an experienced, senior engineer) there's more than just tasking involved in your tenure. People from many parts of the organization have probably come to depend on your insight and experience to make effective decisions, keep themselves out of trouble, ensure that things are being done right, etc. Those people are usually not the senior folks (though they could be), and might include other managers & directors outside of your group or department. A lot of these are walk-up questions, or phonecall-on-the-spur-of-the-moment questions. When you're not there, they'll have to go to someone else, perhaps someone else they trust less, or perhaps someone else that doesn't know the topic as well as you. Then, when you slide into your chair after lunchtime, the damage of bad information or poor knowledge has already been done and you'll spend the next few hours of your valuable time correcting the issue or hunting down the wicked to get them to correct it. For your manager, it's a net loss of your productivity. As for the rationale of "I'm here to answer questions after normal office hours." Well, that's nice and everything, but it's better to have nobody around to answer off-hours calls so that the regular daytime coverage can be used and that the customer doesn't get the feel like the stated hours for support coverage are meaningless. Once a customer gets the idea that the hours of availability are not as stated, they'll ask for a lot more that isn't stated in the long run.
Really, if you want to work your own hours, you should work for yourself -- be a consultant, make a ton of money on projects you self-select, take vacations when you want them, or just start your own company.
Gimme a break. No clinician worth their salt would "resist" keeping their hands clean by either scrubbing or washing or sanitizing, regardless of whether the hands were irritated. It's a basic protocol. Not following the protocol puts human life in jeopardy. Skin can get parched, but there are moisturizing lotions and soaps that help. I work around doctors and nurses all day, and have one of each in my immediate family. There's no exception to the protocol, except, I guess, if someone wanted to put patient safety (and their own safety) at risk, and that person would not be in health care for very long.
We use Connected TLM at my office, and it works pretty well. It helps if you're able to leave your PC/lappy on overnight in terms of hands-free automagic scheduling. PCMag had this review from years ago. Their latest offering is called something like "Data Protector" or something like that. There's a subscription cost, so you'lll have to assess if the money's worth the peace of mind. I've been pretty lucky and have not had a HD failure. Folks around me who have had their disks fail say it was a lifesaver. There are a bunch of other companies that more or less have the same kind of offering. I think Iron Mountain has a pretty good one, too. Hope it helps.
John DeLorean was running out of capital in late 1981 (the car (like all unique new models that come out from any car company) was not quite ready for the market and production bugs were still being worked out -- slowing sales) and he was steered to an investment opportunity that later turned out to be a cocaine import racket. He didn't know about it at the time he agreed to it, and was acquitted of any involvement in the drug smuggling ring that end up getting his money. He was never convicted of anything and never spent a day in jail. He also lost the millions he invested.
I'm on T-Mobile (GSM) and the last time I went across the pond (to the british isles, in 2002), all I had to do was call T-mobile about a week in advance and tell them where I was going (what countries) and I didn't have to get an additional SIM for any of them. I was told that I could do the same thing if I travelled anywhere else in Europe... just let 'em know in advance where I'll be going and they'd set me up. It didn't seem to be much of a hassle at all, and I was able to receive all my calls from people dialing my stateside number, but I did have quite the hefty bill when I got home. Would I have saved more had I bought in-country SIMs?... dunno.
I do have a bunch of numbers stored on my SIM card, so keeping my SIM contacts was pretty important to me.
Just a quick qualifying point, because I've seen you post pretty actively on this topic, today and for the most part I think you've stuck to the evidence and kept a pretty level-headed set of opinions. Credit due, credit given, even if I disagree with you on a few points.
The dems do not have senate control. There is still one democratic senator who's out from a stroke and can't vote, plus there's that whacko nutjob of Joe Lieberman who likes to aspire to democratic ideals but keeps voting republican.. I think his state just likes to say that they will elect a democrat as long as he's a republican, but I digress.
Unless there's a dependable 3-seat voting margin of a majority or better, the senate isn't really controlled by a party. Where control of the senate really shines is when there are enough (15 or so) in the minority party who will cross the aisle to vote with the majority. Even though that may be possible now, it's a really tight squeeze to get 2/3rds on any vote of controversy. The sides are too polarized to allow it right now, but maybe in 4 years that might change.
It's worth noting that many of the votes dems now regret came at a time when the populace was whipped into an uber-patriotic frenzy after 9/11 (Iraq war powers, patriot act, DOHS, etc.), and the votes they cast reflected what they were seeing in the mailbag, so they seemed easy to cross the aisle for. You won't see any of those anytime soon, I'll warrant.
I don't forsee dems having anything like republican control was over 2001-2005, or at least not any time soon. The supreme court will stay conservative for awhile, yet. What I'm waiting for is to have republicans take up conservatism again and step away from big government, anti-privacy, bedroom legislating, world-bullying, wild debt-supported-spending and abandoning our armed forces and return to the core values of fiscal restraint, non-interventionist foreign policy, privacy-protecting, funding our standing military, small-government counterbalance to liberal values.
Honestly, each party really can be a good check to the other, but it's a little too much like "my way or the high-way" these days for us to get the benefit of honestly argued compromise.
Um, let me set you straight on your "by the way..." paragraph, since you probably skipped your civics classes.
A congressional subpoena actually has meaning. Enforcement is left to what was the responsibility of the sergeant at arms of the congress. There's a "jail" in the capitol for that enforcement, as I recall, but I'm pretty sure it hasn't been used in more than 100 years. The SoA no longer enforces congressional subpoenas under contempt of congress. That role now falls to Atty Gen. Alberto Gonzales, and even though most of our senators have voted that they have confidence in him (sorry, I flipped that -- the senate basically failed to pass a vote of no-confidence, which I'm interpreting as confirmation of senatorial confidence) the AG most certainly would not enforce any congressional subpoena unless it was a democrat that was in contempt. So it's not a sternly-worded request, but it amounts to one because the AG would never enforce it, or would delay it sufficiently to make the subpoena meaningless.
It's odd, therefore, that you see it as a "hack job". You seem to be treating the slap of a wet noodle as the full swing of a battle axe. Methinks you protest too much. Maybe, though, you feel like a beaten dog who yelps and flinches when anyone approaches, whether they have a stick or steak in-hand. That's too bad, but it'll wear off.
I have a funny feeling that dems will capture more seats over the next couple years. Don't know how much, but then again I'm just guessing.
Herzl actually never made any assertions that Jews had to establish a homeland in the middle east. When he first discussed the idea of a Jewish homeland, in a pamphlet (if recollection serves, it was "The Jewish Sate"), he was thinking about South America (thought it was Argentina, but I could be wrong), and that the land should be purchased, legitimately, so that no assertions of thievery could be made.
The problem is that in the early part of the 20th century, a number of movements (some linked with socialism) adopted Herzl's zionism as the cause for the re-establishment of the biblical Jewish homeland in what was then called Palestine. There's a bunch of Jewish theological commentaries and arguments about the notion of returning to the holy land, and some traditions in burial and at passover time to symbolically create the link to the biblical homeland. Different Jewish sects see the call to return to the biblical homeland differently, and have different traditions for it. These differences are the sources of endless, bitter controversy among the worldwide Jewish community
What gets lost on the enemies of zionism as we know it today (and you sum it up pretty well, even though you distort it a little bit with the "displacement" assertion), is that the Jewish people are, and have almost always been, a people of the diaspora -- without a religious home. The people that come to Israel (planeloads every day), come because they are shunned and persecuted where they lived elsewhere in the world, for the most part. Sure, there are spiritual zionists that come not to flee persecution but to fulfill the spiritual mission of returning to the holy land, but for the most part, these spiritual zionists do not come to stay in Israel for the rest of their lives. Some do come to stay, though.
As to "displacement"... when Great Britain ceded Palestine to become the Jewish state of Israel, the Arab and Palestinian inhabitants were pretty much glad to be rid of the British, and there have always been Jewish communities in Palestine, so Israel wasn't seen so much as a threat. It was cautious, and even skeptical, optimism on their part that allowed the state to be created. The Jewish government in Israel didn't do a very good job of making good on their promise to include Palestinian tribes and ethnic groups as they took the reins of power. The "displacement" that is at the core of many Palestinian complaints came as a result of the 6 day war, when Palestinians in Israel and what are now the occupied territories deserted their lands and fled as they saw Nasser's armies (and Syria's and Jordan's) poised to sweep though Israel. The Israeli army occupied all the lands that Syria and Jordan and Egypt had been using to threaten Israel.
Honestly, I understand the Israeli perspective -- that is, if the people who threaten you either flee their lands when you attack or host foreign armies to threaten you, they lose their land. That's it. No give-backs. If a people does not have the courage to stay and fight for their land, then the land must not mean much to them. At the same time, I think that Palestinians got a really sucky deal from Israel from the time it was created. Sure, the rhetoric at the time was "we can all live together peacefully", but the practice of Israeli rule really gave Palestinians the short shrift -- they didn't get the same level of access to government services & contracting opportunities, the courts were stacked against them, water rights were not honored, and the Israeli army defended the taking of land by Israeli settlers when they should not have.
Personally, as a Jew, I hope one day to visit Israel before I die. At the same time, I've met a lot of Arabs and Muslims and Druse who have a mixed story to tell of their time in Israel and of being second-class citizens, not very much unlike black folks here in the states, and I have great sympathy for that. I've never been a fan of the occupation, but I also see the unilateral pullout from Gaza as having been a disaster. The war
I keep a copy of Getting To Yes (or "Getting Toyes" as my employees call it) on my desk. I bought it because I was frequently getting squashed in negotiations, capitulating more often than I wanted to. It has some great techniques and examples, and some great (if a little dated) historical and foreign policy anecdotes for illustration.
It helped me find techniques for getting my needs aired and considered (if not always met) as a part of negotiations. I find that I can walk away from negotiations, now, feeling like I've done my best, and received the best deal I could get.
While I don't disagree with most of what you relate, the body of historical data for the CO2 composition of the atmosphere is very rich, and stretches back roughly 700,000 years from the Antarctic ice core record... we've reached the bottom of Antarctic core drilling sites, btw. I've forgotten how deep the Greenland record is -- I seem to recall it's something like 25,000 years, but I could be wrong. (My ex runs North polar research programs for the NSF and we don't talk about this stuff so much anymore.) In those ice-trapped gasses, there's also the oxygen isotope data to offer temperature information.
Next time you're in colorado, swing by and visit the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) -- it's pretty cool (no pun intended) and you can actually see the cores, how they're being used, and what kinds of information we get from them.
So I'm not sure why you perceive that there's not much accurate data except for a brief period of time. On a planetary scale, 700,000 years is not so much, but it does easily cover all of the time of modern humans. Even if you consider the Greenland cores alone, and I'm sure I'm conservative with the 25,000 year figure, that would give you data from the time of stone knives and bearskins.
Trends aren't "extrapolated" backwards from huge data sets like that, either. You just go and get the data and let it show the trend. There's no mystical zoroastrian hocus-pocus involved.
Does the trapped-gas data from ice cores supply all the information one might need? No. It's stacked up against fossil (petrified tree) and geologic records from around the world to offer a more complete picture.
Thanks for making the correction. The OP clearly hasn't tried to get into Denver lately.
I've only lived here for 35 years, but I also can't recall a time where we got regular weekly precip in this way. I do seem to recall some pretty heavy end-of-year storms in the late 80s, and a couple in the late 90s (96-98), but (as you know) the usual drill is "it snows, the sun comes out, it melts".
I'm from Minnesota originally, and the one thing I thought I could always count on in Colorado was that those huge black "snowbergs" in the supermarket parking lot would diminish and go away in a couple weeks. In Minneapolis, they stay around for a good 3-4 months.
Some time back, our ClearCase record database hit the exact same limit of 2^24. Set us up for a schema 54 upgrade. It was very challenging. I feel your pain, CmdrTaco.
I'm sorry, that's no excuse. He's been an openly-gay GOP member of congress for years (guess you're not from Flo-riddah, are you?), and under the GOP tent since he came in. To have failed to accurately report the public record of his GOP service, even for a day, is a monumental "flaw" and obvious attempt to use an untruth as a convenient distortion opportunity to "correct" unsavory facts by associating him with the liberal enemy. It was appalling. I'm not suggesting the guy should be roasted, but any "news" organization worth its salt can faithfully report the public truth of a congressman's party affiliation, and FOX news isn't worth its salt. To have "corrected" misreported facts that have been publically recorded and known for more than a decade is nauseating. Someone got a raise when they should have been fired, I think.
You wrote: "(remember, in the US, you cannot as a citizen own an automatic weapon)"
Actually, you can, and thousands do. The permitting process is very tightly restricted. Most private owners are military, in law enforcement or security services, but there are some private collectors and enthusiasts that don't serve in the military and are not a part of a security service or law enforcement organization. (I go to a few machine gun shoots every year, and I rent my guns from these people.) When the ATF is checking someone out for an automatic weapons permit, they check everything short of your colon. It's also possible to assemble an automatic rifle with fairly little effort, though it's very illegal and the information on how to perform the necessary modifications to a semiauto is also illegal to transmit.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think you understand what "conservative" and "liberal" mean. It's especially obvious when you pair them with "capitalist" and "communist", respectively.
liberal != communist
conservative != capitalist
I suggest using a dictionary to learn the meanings of words.
One of the greatest setbacks that CoD has suffered within my gaming group is the lack of CO-OP multiplayer on the LAN. We prefer to start our own server and play with the bots. 2142 forces you to gain rank -only- in online PvP play, which we think sucks big donkey dick (though we just found a cheat that allows you to build rank for LAN-only play). Does CoD4 offer a CO-OP LAN multiplayer option?
I'd add that if you are really good at turning around fixes in 72 hours, the customer will come to expect that. It will get to the point that they'll growl and pester when you take 96 hours on a fix.
Managing the expectations generated by your history of success is much harder to do, regardless of what the SLA says.
We do have electronic records. I work for a shop that depends heavily on them, and our software products are only available in the US, touching 90% of all prescriptions filled in the US.
I'm not so sure that it's behind much of a curtain. At all the political party conventions, there are corporate-sponsored "networking" events that delegates get to attend. All-you-can-eat shrimp cocktails and all-the-champagne-you-can-drink. It's pretty much out in the open, as I see it.
You said that it is easier to say than do.
To quote you:
"This is easier said than done."
I didn't say anything about it being easy. I only meant to point out that if someone wants to write their own rules for when they work and what they wear, they have options. For my team, each person establishes an agreement with me about what their hours are, and we stick with that. Variances are noted, with some allowance for periodic outside-of-work obligations, bad traffic, etc. If lateness starts to be the norm, it's dealt with as a performance problem. Engineers with performance problems either get no raise at salary review time, or a token adjustment. Promotion is completely ruled out. That's business. If someone wants to start their own business and decide what they think is right, then they don't have to play by my rules. Funny, though, people who may slack when working for someone else suddenly find all sorts of motivation to start the day early when they're the boss, and they suddenly stop tolerating tardiness in their own employees. Funny, that.
Re your question "Can you show me any benefit my boss would derive from requiring me to wear a suit or that I must be in the office around certain hours?"
I can, actually, but not about the suit part. Even though I'm not your boss, I do manage a half-dozen engineers on my team... and I could care less about what they wear, btw.
What it comes down to for me is that (if you're an experienced, senior engineer) there's more than just tasking involved in your tenure. People from many parts of the organization have probably come to depend on your insight and experience to make effective decisions, keep themselves out of trouble, ensure that things are being done right, etc. Those people are usually not the senior folks (though they could be), and might include other managers & directors outside of your group or department. A lot of these are walk-up questions, or phonecall-on-the-spur-of-the-moment questions. When you're not there, they'll have to go to someone else, perhaps someone else they trust less, or perhaps someone else that doesn't know the topic as well as you. Then, when you slide into your chair after lunchtime, the damage of bad information or poor knowledge has already been done and you'll spend the next few hours of your valuable time correcting the issue or hunting down the wicked to get them to correct it. For your manager, it's a net loss of your productivity. As for the rationale of "I'm here to answer questions after normal office hours." Well, that's nice and everything, but it's better to have nobody around to answer off-hours calls so that the regular daytime coverage can be used and that the customer doesn't get the feel like the stated hours for support coverage are meaningless. Once a customer gets the idea that the hours of availability are not as stated, they'll ask for a lot more that isn't stated in the long run.
Really, if you want to work your own hours, you should work for yourself -- be a consultant, make a ton of money on projects you self-select, take vacations when you want them, or just start your own company.
Heresay.
No insurable clinician would violate the protocol. Cite sources, please.
thx
Gimme a break. No clinician worth their salt would "resist" keeping their hands clean by either scrubbing or washing or sanitizing, regardless of whether the hands were irritated. It's a basic protocol. Not following the protocol puts human life in jeopardy. Skin can get parched, but there are moisturizing lotions and soaps that help. I work around doctors and nurses all day, and have one of each in my immediate family. There's no exception to the protocol, except, I guess, if someone wanted to put patient safety (and their own safety) at risk, and that person would not be in health care for very long.
We use Connected TLM at my office, and it works pretty well. It helps if you're able to leave your PC/lappy on overnight in terms of hands-free automagic scheduling. PCMag had this review from years ago. Their latest offering is called something like "Data Protector" or something like that. There's a subscription cost, so you'lll have to assess if the money's worth the peace of mind. I've been pretty lucky and have not had a HD failure. Folks around me who have had their disks fail say it was a lifesaver. There are a bunch of other companies that more or less have the same kind of offering. I think Iron Mountain has a pretty good one, too. Hope it helps.
John DeLorean was running out of capital in late 1981 (the car (like all unique new models that come out from any car company) was not quite ready for the market and production bugs were still being worked out -- slowing sales) and he was steered to an investment opportunity that later turned out to be a cocaine import racket. He didn't know about it at the time he agreed to it, and was acquitted of any involvement in the drug smuggling ring that end up getting his money. He was never convicted of anything and never spent a day in jail. He also lost the millions he invested.
I'm on T-Mobile (GSM) and the last time I went across the pond (to the british isles, in 2002), all I had to do was call T-mobile about a week in advance and tell them where I was going (what countries) and I didn't have to get an additional SIM for any of them. I was told that I could do the same thing if I travelled anywhere else in Europe
I do have a bunch of numbers stored on my SIM card, so keeping my SIM contacts was pretty important to me.
The dems do not have senate control. There is still one democratic senator who's out from a stroke and can't vote, plus there's that whacko nutjob of Joe Lieberman who likes to aspire to democratic ideals but keeps voting republican .. I think his state just likes to say that they will elect a democrat as long as he's a republican, but I digress.
Unless there's a dependable 3-seat voting margin of a majority or better, the senate isn't really controlled by a party. Where control of the senate really shines is when there are enough (15 or so) in the minority party who will cross the aisle to vote with the majority. Even though that may be possible now, it's a really tight squeeze to get 2/3rds on any vote of controversy. The sides are too polarized to allow it right now, but maybe in 4 years that might change.
It's worth noting that many of the votes dems now regret came at a time when the populace was whipped into an uber-patriotic frenzy after 9/11 (Iraq war powers, patriot act, DOHS, etc.), and the votes they cast reflected what they were seeing in the mailbag, so they seemed easy to cross the aisle for. You won't see any of those anytime soon, I'll warrant.
I don't forsee dems having anything like republican control was over 2001-2005, or at least not any time soon. The supreme court will stay conservative for awhile, yet. What I'm waiting for is to have republicans take up conservatism again and step away from big government, anti-privacy, bedroom legislating, world-bullying, wild debt-supported-spending and abandoning our armed forces and return to the core values of fiscal restraint, non-interventionist foreign policy, privacy-protecting, funding our standing military, small-government counterbalance to liberal values.
Honestly, each party really can be a good check to the other, but it's a little too much like "my way or the high-way" these days for us to get the benefit of honestly argued compromise.
A congressional subpoena actually has meaning. Enforcement is left to what was the responsibility of the sergeant at arms of the congress. There's a "jail" in the capitol for that enforcement, as I recall, but I'm pretty sure it hasn't been used in more than 100 years. The SoA no longer enforces congressional subpoenas under contempt of congress. That role now falls to Atty Gen. Alberto Gonzales, and even though most of our senators have voted that they have confidence in him (sorry, I flipped that -- the senate basically failed to pass a vote of no-confidence, which I'm interpreting as confirmation of senatorial confidence) the AG most certainly would not enforce any congressional subpoena unless it was a democrat that was in contempt. So it's not a sternly-worded request, but it amounts to one because the AG would never enforce it, or would delay it sufficiently to make the subpoena meaningless.
It's odd, therefore, that you see it as a "hack job". You seem to be treating the slap of a wet noodle as the full swing of a battle axe. Methinks you protest too much. Maybe, though, you feel like a beaten dog who yelps and flinches when anyone approaches, whether they have a stick or steak in-hand. That's too bad, but it'll wear off.
I have a funny feeling that dems will capture more seats over the next couple years. Don't know how much, but then again I'm just guessing.
Herzl actually never made any assertions that Jews had to establish a homeland in the middle east. When he first discussed the idea of a Jewish homeland, in a pamphlet (if recollection serves, it was "The Jewish Sate"), he was thinking about South America (thought it was Argentina, but I could be wrong), and that the land should be purchased, legitimately, so that no assertions of thievery could be made.
The problem is that in the early part of the 20th century, a number of movements (some linked with socialism) adopted Herzl's zionism as the cause for the re-establishment of the biblical Jewish homeland in what was then called Palestine. There's a bunch of Jewish theological commentaries and arguments about the notion of returning to the holy land, and some traditions in burial and at passover time to symbolically create the link to the biblical homeland. Different Jewish sects see the call to return to the biblical homeland differently, and have different traditions for it. These differences are the sources of endless, bitter controversy among the worldwide Jewish community
What gets lost on the enemies of zionism as we know it today (and you sum it up pretty well, even though you distort it a little bit with the "displacement" assertion), is that the Jewish people are, and have almost always been, a people of the diaspora -- without a religious home. The people that come to Israel (planeloads every day), come because they are shunned and persecuted where they lived elsewhere in the world, for the most part. Sure, there are spiritual zionists that come not to flee persecution but to fulfill the spiritual mission of returning to the holy land, but for the most part, these spiritual zionists do not come to stay in Israel for the rest of their lives. Some do come to stay, though.
As to "displacement"... when Great Britain ceded Palestine to become the Jewish state of Israel, the Arab and Palestinian inhabitants were pretty much glad to be rid of the British, and there have always been Jewish communities in Palestine, so Israel wasn't seen so much as a threat. It was cautious, and even skeptical, optimism on their part that allowed the state to be created. The Jewish government in Israel didn't do a very good job of making good on their promise to include Palestinian tribes and ethnic groups as they took the reins of power. The "displacement" that is at the core of many Palestinian complaints came as a result of the 6 day war, when Palestinians in Israel and what are now the occupied territories deserted their lands and fled as they saw Nasser's armies (and Syria's and Jordan's) poised to sweep though Israel. The Israeli army occupied all the lands that Syria and Jordan and Egypt had been using to threaten Israel.
Honestly, I understand the Israeli perspective -- that is, if the people who threaten you either flee their lands when you attack or host foreign armies to threaten you, they lose their land. That's it. No give-backs. If a people does not have the courage to stay and fight for their land, then the land must not mean much to them. At the same time, I think that Palestinians got a really sucky deal from Israel from the time it was created. Sure, the rhetoric at the time was "we can all live together peacefully", but the practice of Israeli rule really gave Palestinians the short shrift -- they didn't get the same level of access to government services & contracting opportunities, the courts were stacked against them, water rights were not honored, and the Israeli army defended the taking of land by Israeli settlers when they should not have.
Personally, as a Jew, I hope one day to visit Israel before I die. At the same time, I've met a lot of Arabs and Muslims and Druse who have a mixed story to tell of their time in Israel and of being second-class citizens, not very much unlike black folks here in the states, and I have great sympathy for that. I've never been a fan of the occupation, but I also see the unilateral pullout from Gaza as having been a disaster. The war
It helped me find techniques for getting my needs aired and considered (if not always met) as a part of negotiations. I find that I can walk away from negotiations, now, feeling like I've done my best, and received the best deal I could get.
Great book. Thanks for mentioning it.
I saw this as well. You can see some of his bias in TFA, definetly.
I do not recall a Clinton conviction for purjury. Can you cite the case? (link would be fine) Thanks
Next time you're in colorado, swing by and visit the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) -- it's pretty cool (no pun intended) and you can actually see the cores, how they're being used, and what kinds of information we get from them.
So I'm not sure why you perceive that there's not much accurate data except for a brief period of time. On a planetary scale, 700,000 years is not so much, but it does easily cover all of the time of modern humans. Even if you consider the Greenland cores alone, and I'm sure I'm conservative with the 25,000 year figure, that would give you data from the time of stone knives and bearskins.
Trends aren't "extrapolated" backwards from huge data sets like that, either. You just go and get the data and let it show the trend. There's no mystical zoroastrian hocus-pocus involved.
Does the trapped-gas data from ice cores supply all the information one might need? No. It's stacked up against fossil (petrified tree) and geologic records from around the world to offer a more complete picture.
I've only lived here for 35 years, but I also can't recall a time where we got regular weekly precip in this way. I do seem to recall some pretty heavy end-of-year storms in the late 80s, and a couple in the late 90s (96-98), but (as you know) the usual drill is "it snows, the sun comes out, it melts".
I'm from Minnesota originally, and the one thing I thought I could always count on in Colorado was that those huge black "snowbergs" in the supermarket parking lot would diminish and go away in a couple weeks. In Minneapolis, they stay around for a good 3-4 months.
Some time back, our ClearCase record database hit the exact same limit of 2^24. Set us up for a schema 54 upgrade. It was very challenging. I feel your pain, CmdrTaco.
I'm sorry, that's no excuse. He's been an openly-gay GOP member of congress for years (guess you're not from Flo-riddah, are you?), and under the GOP tent since he came in. To have failed to accurately report the public record of his GOP service, even for a day, is a monumental "flaw" and obvious attempt to use an untruth as a convenient distortion opportunity to "correct" unsavory facts by associating him with the liberal enemy. It was appalling. I'm not suggesting the guy should be roasted, but any "news" organization worth its salt can faithfully report the public truth of a congressman's party affiliation, and FOX news isn't worth its salt. To have "corrected" misreported facts that have been publically recorded and known for more than a decade is nauseating. Someone got a raise when they should have been fired, I think.
You wrote: "(remember, in the US, you cannot as a citizen own an automatic weapon)"
Actually, you can, and thousands do. The permitting process is very tightly restricted. Most private owners are military, in law enforcement or security services, but there are some private collectors and enthusiasts that don't serve in the military and are not a part of a security service or law enforcement organization. (I go to a few machine gun shoots every year, and I rent my guns from these people.) When the ATF is checking someone out for an automatic weapons permit, they check everything short of your colon. It's also possible to assemble an automatic rifle with fairly little effort, though it's very illegal and the information on how to perform the necessary modifications to a semiauto is also illegal to transmit.
For nearly a week, FOX news reported that Rep. Foley was a democrat.