Absolutely. The big journalists have accepted incredibly large "speaking fees" from the very same corporations that have been the subjects of their news stories (or not the subjects if they have been up to no good in some cases). Cokie Roberts has been paid $35,000 to speak for an hour to the Junior League. It was paid for by a Toyota distributor. Do you think Cokie will report on anything bad that distributor does after that?
The Dean campaign used their money to pay bloggers.
Ever hear of "matching funds"? That too is your tax money.
The bloggers fully disclosed the payment.
Did they? Where did Kos say how much the payment was? And he went out of his way to claim it was "technical" and said it was "not policy or strategy" when in fact, it was not anything technical at all and was clearly all message and strategy. That's not a "full disclosure."
But Kos lied about what he was doing. He claimed: "it's technical, not message or strategy" when in fact, he was paid to promote a particular message and strategy. There was nothing "technical" about it.
Claiming it was "technical work" like web-site designing is a far cry from being paid for influence peddling. That's not "transparent" at all. It's devious and disingenuous.
Why bring it back? Use it in place. Gold is the most malleable material there is. It's soft and easy to work with. Relatively low melting point. Very dense (makes for great UV shielding). Highly conductive. Impervious to corrosion.
It's the perfect native material to use to make stuff out of on Mars.
Maybe it's a gold nugget! And the race is on. Exploration in 2010, settlement in 2020, mining in 2030, colonization in 2040, terraforming in 2050.... (although a source of liquid water would be more valuable kilo for kilo than gold).
Program restrictions are not relevant for my purposes, which are not broadcasting.
If you are not engaged in two-way communicatons, you are by definition engaged in broadcasting at which point broadcasting rules come into play legally.
I don't follow the logic either. How about a pipe bomb? They too are easy to make and simple to operate. But the manufacture or possession of one is a felony not just the use of it. Should making or owning a pipe bomb be legal?
Mars for the Martians! Really now. Why don't we let the people who live (will live) there decide a question like this. This is the sort of thing that led to the American Revolution. The British government forbade British settlement west of the Appalachian Mountains, dictated that the colonists could only purchase goods that had been through a British middleman (and taxed), and so forth.
Who knows where the economically useful areas are? Let the ones who are there (will be) there figure it out.
Oxford University did a trial project to see how difficult it would be to place some 18th and 19th Century journals online. Here is the final report giving some of the difficulties they had. The journals are available here and make for some very interesting browsing.
Because for television broadcast to the general population you want to wash the signal over the whole earth, rather than trying to target each receiver.
Unless you are something like the license-fee-funded BBC where you want only British television-license-payers to receive your signal and not any Germans, French, or anybody else.
Entirely, 100%, completely, and shamefully false. Kerry NEVER said that Iraq posed an imminent threat. NEVER. Do I have to repeat it again?
But Edwards clearly did and you are voting a two-man ticket. In an interview with Larry King on CNN in 2002: "EDWARDS: I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country, and I think Iraq and Saddam Hussein present the most serious and most imminent threat."
For his part Kerry missed 38 of 49 public hearings while he was on the Senate Intelligence Committee from 1993 to 2000 so apparently he didn't care too much about seeking out whether the intelligence was correct or not.
It was President Bush, despite your best efforts to paint him otherwise, who was the one who explicitly said Iraq WAS NOT an imminent threat in his 2003 State of the Union speech: "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late."
And what exactly did Bush do to deal with the Al Qaeda threat that the Clinton administration warned him about during his first 8 months in office?
If he knew so much, exactly what did Clinton do about Al Qaeda before passing this "warning" on other than bombing a set of monkey bars in Afghanistan and bombing an aspirin factory in the Sudan? He had eight full years to act, not just eight months.
And I can imagine your reaction had our soldiers shot them in order to prevent looting instead of letting them run wild.
The choice of letting them vent by looting government offices or clamping down hard to prevent it was no easy choice. And answer honestly -- if the soldiers had shot a few dirt-poor Iraqis who were looting golden faucet heads out of Uday and Qusay's mansions would you now claim that was a mistake -- that it would have been better to allow them to seek retribution by taking back some of their wealth from the Hussain palaces?
Human CO2 emissions since the Industrial Age over 150 years ago are *directly* proportional to the global warming.
The latest cycle of global warming began with the end of the ice age! You can't claim that humans are responsible for all of that since industrial production only began in the last 150 years. You are tying two unrelated things together. No one disputes global warming. No one disputes that humans are introducing CO2 into the atmosphere in larger quanties than previously. But the correlation is not evidence of causation. This latest cycle of global warming is but one of many. The US used to be covered in glaciers. The Sahara was green. Tropical plants grew in Antarctica. SUVs were not the causitive agent then and may not be the causitive agent now when there are bigger factors in play.
Global warming is serious and it is happening now. Rather than decreasing industrial production to reduce greenhouse emissions because you think it might help -- would not a better course of action be in devising ways to cope with a warmer climate (which will surely happen even if we decrease greenhouse gasses)?
Human-based greenhouse gas emissions are a product of the production of goods and services. Any money spent on reducing greenhouse gas emissons could be better spent on clean water, sanitary sewage, and disease eradiation if your goal is the overall improvement of the quality of life for all humans. The US and China produce the most greenhous gases because the US and China produce the most goods and service for the world. Even if we reduce human-based greenhouse gas emissions by reducing industrial production it may be for naught if the driving force in global warming is based on geologic or solar phenomema. Why deprive third world people of clean water, sanitary sewage, and innoculations while chasing a chimera?
If that isn't good enough, think about the health problems associated with human activity. Asthma is at an all time high and is the number one cause of missed school days for children. People are getting sick, some are even dying, because they simply breath the air around them. So here is what we do, reduce emissions, clean up the air, breath easy.
If the money spent on implementing the Kyoto Protocols were instead spent on providing clean drinking water and sanitary sewage disposal for third world countries, many MORE people would live and would have a better life to boot. Lots of diseases would bew eradicated. Why do you only want a better life for the people living in your urban conflagration? Do the needs of third world people come last?
The magnetic field is 90% of what it was 100 years ago, not necessarily approaching nil.
If that statistic were on the other side of the argument it would be taken to mean just that. A 10 percent drop in magnetic field strength over just 100 years is a free fall compared to geologic history. Assuming an arithmetic progression (and it probably is an exponentional one) there will be no magnetic field strength at all in 1000 years -- a very very small amount of geologic time. There will be nothing to protect our descendents from solar winds which are generated essentially by sunspots.
Let's see: the Sun is at an 8000-year high for solar activity, Mars is emerging from its own Ice Age and its polar caps are disappearing, and the Earth's magnetic field strength is approaching nil before it reconstitutes with an opposite polarity. And we are to believe that human activity is somehow solely resposible for global warming?
Don't go by the web site. I kept going there as well after they finished in fiber lay down in my neighborhood. It kept saying "not available" but then I called the telephone number and I qualified (I'm in Keller). Call the number!
Slashdot Mirror
Most of the Linux people I know are Libertarians -- not leftists at all.
Absolutely. The big journalists have accepted incredibly large "speaking fees" from the very same corporations that have been the subjects of their news stories (or not the subjects if they have been up to no good in some cases). Cokie Roberts has been paid $35,000 to speak for an hour to the Junior League. It was paid for by a Toyota distributor. Do you think Cokie will report on anything bad that distributor does after that?
Ever hear of "matching funds"? That too is your tax money.
The bloggers fully disclosed the payment.
Did they? Where did Kos say how much the payment was? And he went out of his way to claim it was "technical" and said it was "not policy or strategy" when in fact, it was not anything technical at all and was clearly all message and strategy. That's not a "full disclosure."
But Kos lied about what he was doing. He claimed: "it's technical, not message or strategy" when in fact, he was paid to promote a particular message and strategy. There was nothing "technical" about it.
Claiming it was "technical work" like web-site designing is a far cry from being paid for influence peddling. That's not "transparent" at all. It's devious and disingenuous.
It's the perfect native material to use to make stuff out of on Mars.
Maybe it's a gold nugget! And the race is on. Exploration in 2010, settlement in 2020, mining in 2030, colonization in 2040, terraforming in 2050 .... (although a source of liquid water would be more valuable kilo for kilo than gold).
If you are not engaged in two-way communicatons, you are by definition engaged in broadcasting at which point broadcasting rules come into play legally.
I see it more as a fraternity hazing ritual than a real attempt to gauge aptitude or ability. Young companies are often like this for some reason.
The same thing happens with Yahoooooooo....
Who knows where the economically useful areas are? Let the ones who are there (will be) there figure it out.
What's that old saying? "There's no such thing as truely bad publicity, as the only bad publicity is no publicity at all."
Oxford University did a trial project to see how difficult it would be to place some 18th and 19th Century journals online. Here is the final report giving some of the difficulties they had. The journals are available here and make for some very interesting browsing.
Unless you are something like the license-fee-funded BBC where you want only British television-license-payers to receive your signal and not any Germans, French, or anybody else.
But Edwards clearly did and you are voting a two-man ticket. In an interview with Larry King on CNN in 2002: "EDWARDS: I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country, and I think Iraq and Saddam Hussein present the most serious and most imminent threat."
For his part Kerry missed 38 of 49 public hearings while he was on the Senate Intelligence Committee from 1993 to 2000 so apparently he didn't care too much about seeking out whether the intelligence was correct or not.
It was President Bush, despite your best efforts to paint him otherwise, who was the one who explicitly said Iraq WAS NOT an imminent threat in his 2003 State of the Union speech: "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late."
And what exactly did Bush do to deal with the Al Qaeda threat that the Clinton administration warned him about during his first 8 months in office?
If he knew so much, exactly what did Clinton do about Al Qaeda before passing this "warning" on other than bombing a set of monkey bars in Afghanistan and bombing an aspirin factory in the Sudan? He had eight full years to act, not just eight months.
And I can imagine your reaction had our soldiers shot them in order to prevent looting instead of letting them run wild.
The choice of letting them vent by looting government offices or clamping down hard to prevent it was no easy choice. And answer honestly -- if the soldiers had shot a few dirt-poor Iraqis who were looting golden faucet heads out of Uday and Qusay's mansions would you now claim that was a mistake -- that it would have been better to allow them to seek retribution by taking back some of their wealth from the Hussain palaces?
The latest cycle of global warming began with the end of the ice age! You can't claim that humans are responsible for all of that since industrial production only began in the last 150 years. You are tying two unrelated things together. No one disputes global warming. No one disputes that humans are introducing CO2 into the atmosphere in larger quanties than previously. But the correlation is not evidence of causation. This latest cycle of global warming is but one of many. The US used to be covered in glaciers. The Sahara was green. Tropical plants grew in Antarctica. SUVs were not the causitive agent then and may not be the causitive agent now when there are bigger factors in play.
Global warming is serious and it is happening now. Rather than decreasing industrial production to reduce greenhouse emissions because you think it might help -- would not a better course of action be in devising ways to cope with a warmer climate (which will surely happen even if we decrease greenhouse gasses)?
Human-based greenhouse gas emissions are a product of the production of goods and services. Any money spent on reducing greenhouse gas emissons could be better spent on clean water, sanitary sewage, and disease eradiation if your goal is the overall improvement of the quality of life for all humans. The US and China produce the most greenhous gases because the US and China produce the most goods and service for the world. Even if we reduce human-based greenhouse gas emissions by reducing industrial production it may be for naught if the driving force in global warming is based on geologic or solar phenomema. Why deprive third world people of clean water, sanitary sewage, and innoculations while chasing a chimera?
On the contrary. The evidence is quite good.
I have no freaking clue what you are talking about the Earth's magnetic field. For one, it has *NOTHING* to do with global warming.
Read this and this and then get back to me. The magnetosphere blocks solar radiation from penetrating the lower levels of the atmosphere.
About the sun, well, let's see. Sunspots are actually cooler areas of the Sun. So the more sunspots, the cooler the sun!
Read this and then get back to me. Sunspots are indicators of higher solar activity.
If the money spent on implementing the Kyoto Protocols were instead spent on providing clean drinking water and sanitary sewage disposal for third world countries, many MORE people would live and would have a better life to boot. Lots of diseases would bew eradicated. Why do you only want a better life for the people living in your urban conflagration? Do the needs of third world people come last?
If that statistic were on the other side of the argument it would be taken to mean just that. A 10 percent drop in magnetic field strength over just 100 years is a free fall compared to geologic history. Assuming an arithmetic progression (and it probably is an exponentional one) there will be no magnetic field strength at all in 1000 years -- a very very small amount of geologic time. There will be nothing to protect our descendents from solar winds which are generated essentially by sunspots.
Let's see: the Sun is at an 8000-year high for solar activity, Mars is emerging from its own Ice Age and its polar caps are disappearing, and the Earth's magnetic field strength is approaching nil before it reconstitutes with an opposite polarity. And we are to believe that human activity is somehow solely resposible for global warming?
I got the 15/2 service and it's great.
Valery Polyakov spend 438 days in space in a single continuous mission on the Mir space station from January 8, 1994 to March 22, 1995.