Interesting point, but I usually have my phone with me, and the charging cord sits next to the chair I sit in when I'm watching TV. So for me it would be convenient as it fits with my already established pattern. Though when I saw the iRemote apps my initial reaction was pretty much what you said.
Your example is misguided. Firstly, spun is talking about the ultra rich, which is something like the top one hundredth of a percent. Your example is of the upper middle class to moderately wealthy. Not the same thing. Secondly, you speak of giving people money who don't earn it (the classic welfare model). When in fact the majority of recipients are the working poor, people who are working full time (or more) and making less than a livable wage (minimum wage is below the poverty line). Lastly, no one is talking about legislating generosity, rather what is being discussed is compensating for greed. Here are my thoughts: money is like water, there is a lot of it, but it is finite and needs to be spread around such that everyone gets enough. The idea that money is finite is the most challenging to explain, but it is, and simply making more only decreases its value. If you have 1 percent of the population controlling 90% of the wealth then there is no way that the remaining 99% of the population as a whole can ever have enough money to live. If you can stop this one percent from controlling the vast majority of the wealth then you have a better chance of reducing poverty because more of the money is available "flowing" through the economy. The current state of being able to hoard wealth (billions of dollars) is like buying the water rights from the western states and keeping the water away from people/farms/animals that rely on it to live.
IMHO a fertilized embryo has only the potential to become a human organism. But it in itself is not one. Trying to draw the line can be tricky though, as I would also say that once the fetus has a brainstem and brain that governs the heart, it is a human organism. Even so, I would tend to support the right to chose, as the fetus is inside the mother, and as such its rights cannot be protected without violating hers.
I can't recall the passage, but it essentially says that until the first breath is taken (cry is made perhaps) the baby is not a person, or has no soul. I have read it but don't care enough to find it again. But you are welcome to cite where you find it says otherwise.
That should be the truth. But the teams seem to be the politicians (in the pocket of lobbyists and corporations) vs. the american people. That last team is viewed by the first as "consumers" who are there to be separated as efficiently as possible from their money. The whole "democrat" and "republican" separation is there simply to distract people from the actual teams. At least that is how I currently see it. There is no party who wants small responsible government. There is no party who wants to stop the imperialist tendencies of the military industrial complex (but there are two that are happy to jump on board with it). While the idea of the libertarian party seems to be one answer, aside from Ron Paul, the libertarians might as well be the Palin party from what I have read of them. Bah, it just pisses me off.
The DSM is a tool though, and in order to actually arrive at a diagnosis one needs to be an expert (PhD) and it involves more than simply reading the DSM. So the problem would still exist if they had cited the DSM, as the prosecutor is not an expert (PhD Psychologist for instance). In this case the prosecutor would need to employ their own expert witness. It's like when your car is not running well. You can look at the manual to try to figure out what is wrong, but likely there are going to be several possibilities and more investigation will be necessary.
Guess who's wrong . . . they guy defending the marketing tactics of the corporate world, who uses his signature block to advertise, or the guy who says that people in general hate advertising. Your logic (advertising apologist) is that the people who click on the ads must also like the ads. After careful consideration I'm going to say that you are wrong. But that's just me.
It may be, but only if the thing that drives 95 and flies 5 already exists. That it doesn't exist makes it the most expensive alternative. This thing is pure pork, designed to keep sopping up defense budgets because in the military industrial complex if you go overbudget you get more money, and if you come in under budget then you get less to operate with the next fiscal year.
Energy is probably the biggest hurdle, and I do agree with your premise. But getting a few astronauts on a spaceship to be sustainable (ie, living intentionally and aware of every actions impact on the resource budget) is a good deal easier than getting 6 billion people (or 300 million) to do so.
I mostly agree, but you'll have to try to support your thesis that the earth is a sustainable ecosystem (for humans). Certainly we hit a point where the ecosystem that humans like is present, but for most of the planet's history it has not been that way, and I would predict that we won't stay in that state (regardless of AGW or not) for more than a few hundred thousand years. Which I think is Hawkins point. Even if it's the every million or so meteor hit that makes the major shift, that isn't really a "sustainable" ecosystem.
In my graduate program (Architecture) I would estimate that at least 3 quarters of the students were there just to get the degree and complained incessantly about the work load, high expectations, etc. To make matters worse the professors were rated solely on the end of semester student evaluation forms. Fortunately the professors in my experience did not care (they were tenured) and continued to demand high quality work from everyone and ignore the complaints. The students seemed to want more than anything to devalue their own education. I think that this is common, and that more often than not they succeed.
I think the point of AC Parent (GGGP?) above is that this is Apples weakness, something that a competitor could chose to attack. Of course the attack would have to convince users that there is something that they need, that the current product (iPad) lacks. Just because the consumers are not demanding something does not mean that they cannot be made to demand something. This is essentially the point of marketing. If the positions were reversed and Apple was trying to get into the iPad market defined by MS I am quite sure that they could put together the appropriate marketing campaign. MS does not, and has never, excel at doing that.
I agree with your perspective, but the state (the united states in this case) has declared ownership of your body while you are alive (for example, you are not allowed to kill yourself, to do so is an act of homicide and things like life insurance don't have to pay out). I think the state is wrong, but it is the reality. So your last sentence is not true, unless you caveat it with "should not" or something, because the state does own your cadaver and greatly restricts what your heirs can do with it.
I don't think it's beside the point. The bash on electric cars is usually in regards to road trips. That is where the fast recharge comes into play. The trickle charge at home is an advantage over gasoline powered cars (for those of us who do not have a gasoline pump at home).
Cobb does go into Caine's character's (the grandfather) classroom with something to bring back to the states for the kids, so there is the expectation that the grandfather does travel back and forth, indeed the kids are living with the grandmother. So I think that part makes sense. But he (grandfather) does implore Cobb to come back to reality in that scene . . . something that made me think at the time that perhaps the whole movie is a dream. But I rather think that part is "real" life.
I have been thinking about your second version since seeing that scene. I kept looking for references to the rest of the movie being his dream. Because of that I was not surprised by the top spinning at the end. I am satisfied with not knowing, or with there being no right answer though. It was a good movie, and holds together fairly well (though I also woke up wondering why Cobb did not age in limbo after staying behind . . . just saw this yesterday btw).
The problem with your analysis seems to be a misuse of logic. You state your assumption (reducing the number of guns in circulation will lead to fewer crimes with guns) as if it is some kind of given truth. It's just like saying that criminalizing marijuana (for instance) will lead to reduced usage of marijuana. You will really need to do some work to back that claim up, beyond just looking it up in your gut.
I am not a gun owner, nor do I plan to be one, and feel that if I end up needing a gun for self defense, probably I have done something wrong. But, I will never vote against gun rights because: the dude who is intent on committing a crime (nice example, granny getting raped by assailant with a gun) will do so with or without the gun. Furthermore, if a criminal needs a gun, there will always be a way to get one regardless of the legality.
This of course is my opinion, but a casual survey of prohibitive laws in the modern world can provide a pretty quick sanity check on that opinion. There are a number of illegal things (most really) that I can acquire without much effort at all. Most of those things should probably not be illegal on the grounds that it costs more to have them illegal than it does to simply ignore them.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting point, but I usually have my phone with me, and the charging cord sits next to the chair I sit in when I'm watching TV. So for me it would be convenient as it fits with my already established pattern. Though when I saw the iRemote apps my initial reaction was pretty much what you said.
Your example is misguided. Firstly, spun is talking about the ultra rich, which is something like the top one hundredth of a percent. Your example is of the upper middle class to moderately wealthy. Not the same thing. Secondly, you speak of giving people money who don't earn it (the classic welfare model). When in fact the majority of recipients are the working poor, people who are working full time (or more) and making less than a livable wage (minimum wage is below the poverty line). Lastly, no one is talking about legislating generosity, rather what is being discussed is compensating for greed. Here are my thoughts: money is like water, there is a lot of it, but it is finite and needs to be spread around such that everyone gets enough. The idea that money is finite is the most challenging to explain, but it is, and simply making more only decreases its value. If you have 1 percent of the population controlling 90% of the wealth then there is no way that the remaining 99% of the population as a whole can ever have enough money to live. If you can stop this one percent from controlling the vast majority of the wealth then you have a better chance of reducing poverty because more of the money is available "flowing" through the economy. The current state of being able to hoard wealth (billions of dollars) is like buying the water rights from the western states and keeping the water away from people/farms/animals that rely on it to live.
*golf clap
IMHO a fertilized embryo has only the potential to become a human organism. But it in itself is not one. Trying to draw the line can be tricky though, as I would also say that once the fetus has a brainstem and brain that governs the heart, it is a human organism. Even so, I would tend to support the right to chose, as the fetus is inside the mother, and as such its rights cannot be protected without violating hers.
I can't recall the passage, but it essentially says that until the first breath is taken (cry is made perhaps) the baby is not a person, or has no soul. I have read it but don't care enough to find it again. But you are welcome to cite where you find it says otherwise.
That should be the truth. But the teams seem to be the politicians (in the pocket of lobbyists and corporations) vs. the american people. That last team is viewed by the first as "consumers" who are there to be separated as efficiently as possible from their money. The whole "democrat" and "republican" separation is there simply to distract people from the actual teams. At least that is how I currently see it. There is no party who wants small responsible government. There is no party who wants to stop the imperialist tendencies of the military industrial complex (but there are two that are happy to jump on board with it). While the idea of the libertarian party seems to be one answer, aside from Ron Paul, the libertarians might as well be the Palin party from what I have read of them. Bah, it just pisses me off.
The DSM is a tool though, and in order to actually arrive at a diagnosis one needs to be an expert (PhD) and it involves more than simply reading the DSM. So the problem would still exist if they had cited the DSM, as the prosecutor is not an expert (PhD Psychologist for instance). In this case the prosecutor would need to employ their own expert witness. It's like when your car is not running well. You can look at the manual to try to figure out what is wrong, but likely there are going to be several possibilities and more investigation will be necessary.
Whoosh.
Guess who's wrong . . . they guy defending the marketing tactics of the corporate world, who uses his signature block to advertise, or the guy who says that people in general hate advertising. Your logic (advertising apologist) is that the people who click on the ads must also like the ads. After careful consideration I'm going to say that you are wrong. But that's just me.
Wow. So the truetype library is called "libfreetype". Interesting. Oh yes, the irony is quite thick . . .
It may be, but only if the thing that drives 95 and flies 5 already exists. That it doesn't exist makes it the most expensive alternative. This thing is pure pork, designed to keep sopping up defense budgets because in the military industrial complex if you go overbudget you get more money, and if you come in under budget then you get less to operate with the next fiscal year.
Energy is probably the biggest hurdle, and I do agree with your premise. But getting a few astronauts on a spaceship to be sustainable (ie, living intentionally and aware of every actions impact on the resource budget) is a good deal easier than getting 6 billion people (or 300 million) to do so.
I mostly agree, but you'll have to try to support your thesis that the earth is a sustainable ecosystem (for humans). Certainly we hit a point where the ecosystem that humans like is present, but for most of the planet's history it has not been that way, and I would predict that we won't stay in that state (regardless of AGW or not) for more than a few hundred thousand years. Which I think is Hawkins point. Even if it's the every million or so meteor hit that makes the major shift, that isn't really a "sustainable" ecosystem.
[Shiiiiiiit.]
*caption: "[Golly]"
I think they can still glide, but the glide angle changes pretty drastically.
In my graduate program (Architecture) I would estimate that at least 3 quarters of the students were there just to get the degree and complained incessantly about the work load, high expectations, etc. To make matters worse the professors were rated solely on the end of semester student evaluation forms. Fortunately the professors in my experience did not care (they were tenured) and continued to demand high quality work from everyone and ignore the complaints. The students seemed to want more than anything to devalue their own education. I think that this is common, and that more often than not they succeed.
I think the point of AC Parent (GGGP?) above is that this is Apples weakness, something that a competitor could chose to attack. Of course the attack would have to convince users that there is something that they need, that the current product (iPad) lacks. Just because the consumers are not demanding something does not mean that they cannot be made to demand something. This is essentially the point of marketing. If the positions were reversed and Apple was trying to get into the iPad market defined by MS I am quite sure that they could put together the appropriate marketing campaign. MS does not, and has never, excel at doing that.
Financially perhaps, but the SEC might have something to say about it.
I agree with your perspective, but the state (the united states in this case) has declared ownership of your body while you are alive (for example, you are not allowed to kill yourself, to do so is an act of homicide and things like life insurance don't have to pay out). I think the state is wrong, but it is the reality. So your last sentence is not true, unless you caveat it with "should not" or something, because the state does own your cadaver and greatly restricts what your heirs can do with it.
I don't think it's beside the point. The bash on electric cars is usually in regards to road trips. That is where the fast recharge comes into play. The trickle charge at home is an advantage over gasoline powered cars (for those of us who do not have a gasoline pump at home).
Cobb does go into Caine's character's (the grandfather) classroom with something to bring back to the states for the kids, so there is the expectation that the grandfather does travel back and forth, indeed the kids are living with the grandmother. So I think that part makes sense. But he (grandfather) does implore Cobb to come back to reality in that scene . . . something that made me think at the time that perhaps the whole movie is a dream. But I rather think that part is "real" life.
I have been thinking about your second version since seeing that scene. I kept looking for references to the rest of the movie being his dream. Because of that I was not surprised by the top spinning at the end. I am satisfied with not knowing, or with there being no right answer though. It was a good movie, and holds together fairly well (though I also woke up wondering why Cobb did not age in limbo after staying behind . . . just saw this yesterday btw).
Of course, the satirical nature of the content is obvious to anybody with a brain though.
How I wish you were talking about Fox News.
The problem with your analysis seems to be a misuse of logic. You state your assumption (reducing the number of guns in circulation will lead to fewer crimes with guns) as if it is some kind of given truth. It's just like saying that criminalizing marijuana (for instance) will lead to reduced usage of marijuana. You will really need to do some work to back that claim up, beyond just looking it up in your gut.
I am not a gun owner, nor do I plan to be one, and feel that if I end up needing a gun for self defense, probably I have done something wrong. But, I will never vote against gun rights because: the dude who is intent on committing a crime (nice example, granny getting raped by assailant with a gun) will do so with or without the gun. Furthermore, if a criminal needs a gun, there will always be a way to get one regardless of the legality.
This of course is my opinion, but a casual survey of prohibitive laws in the modern world can provide a pretty quick sanity check on that opinion. There are a number of illegal things (most really) that I can acquire without much effort at all. Most of those things should probably not be illegal on the grounds that it costs more to have them illegal than it does to simply ignore them.
I am curious on what places in the US demand that you join one party or the other. Please enlighten.